We told you a couple ago about the Cinema Eye Awards for documentary filmmaking, the brainchild of director/blogger (and all-around great guy) AJ Schnack and IndiePix. The awards were held last night at the IFC Center, and thanks to former Cinematical editor/current Spout queen Karina Longworth and her impressive Twittering skills, I was able to feel almost like I was there at the awards, instead of sitting here at home continuing to nurse this seemingly endless SXSW cough-from-hell I've been fighting all week.

Here (well, after the jump) are the award winners, per Karina. For the far more entertaining version, you can read the text of her live-posting over on her Twitter site as well. I expect the Cinema Eye folks will add a list of the winners to their site once the open bar closes at the after party, or at least sometime today, so here's a link to the official site as well. We at Cinematical appreciate both Karina's tenacity and her ability to provide entertaining awards coverage in 140-character Twitterings while, presumably, also enjoying the open bar at the party. That's dedication.

http://twitter.com/KarinaLongworth?page=2

Perusing my rss feed today, I came across an interesting scanned article over at Jennifer Venditti's Billy the Kid blog. First, if you've been lurking around Cinematical Indie, it's no surprise that I love Venditti's feature documentary debut. I reviewed the film from Hot Docs, have mentioned Venditti in a few posts, and had a chat with her about her take on indie film. Now she's got a Filmmaker Magazine article up, which was written by Arne Johnson the co-helmer of another favorite 2007 Hot Docs film, Girls Rock!

In the piece, Johnson tackles the extreme pressures documentary filmmakers face when it comes to the troubles of truth. He cites his own struggles with the kick-ass tykes in Rock!, Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady's challenges with Jesus Camp, and Venditti's struggles with Billy criticism -- focusing on the Variety review I posted about in May. It hits a lot of bases, from the need to edit quotes in interviews, or be faced with a terrible-in-text sea of "ums" and awkwardness, to the discussion of whether documentarians taint their source material, or just present a truth that some viewers aren't appreciative of.

Johnson includes a quote from Judy Irving about subjectivity that I found particularly interesting: "When someone throws that at you, like that your film does not have journalistic integrity, or it's not objective, what they're really saying is "I don't agree with you. My subjectivity is different from your subjectivity and I wish you had portrayed what I feel about the subject rather than what you feel." It's a worthy thought -- complaints always come from those who disagree, so do those who agree turn a blind eye to subjectivity, or think that a film covers the bases? And overall, what do you think of this whole argument over truth, subjectivity, and documentary filmmaking?

Film festivals are a movie lover's dream -- you get tons of mainstream and indie features all descending in one all-too-brief block of time. They give you a chance to see what might never get released, and for the mainstream -- you often get to see your favorite actors in person, and hear them chat about the film. However, along with all the fannish fare, there's the damned wrench of scheduling. Sure, sometimes having jet out early to make your next film across the city can be a welcome excuse, but not always. Sometimes, you achingly perch at the end of your seat, waiting for the screen to dim so you can zip past everyone and make your next film -- yet you love what you're watching so much that you're angry to be distracted by the time.

Last year, I was able to see Andrea Arnold's Red Road at TIFF. However, I had little time to get to my next screening. When the credits began to roll, I sped out, right past the director herself. She tried to assure me that she would make the upcoming Q&A interesting. I bet it was, but I don't think the ticket rippers at the next venue would let me in late because Arnold had an interesting Q&A.

But I'm not the only one who has been nabbed by the watchful eye of filmmakers. Judd Apatow was recently at Edinburgh International Film Festival, and during a Q&A, a woman made a quick exit after a fan question. Apatow chided: "Your question is so bad that she's leaving!" The 'she' in question was none other than Jennifer Venditti, the director of Billy the Kid, who was zipping out for an interview. Whoops! At least her film nabbed the top doc prize while she was there. Has this ever happened to you?

At HotDocs this year, I was lucky enough to see and review a great freshman documentary by casting director Jennifer Venditti called Billy the Kid. The film was both happy and poignant, respectfully showing the young life of a kid who should be recognized for how terribly cool he is -- by being quite different than what's considered "cool" today. As part of our new Cinematical Indie Chats, Venditti kindly took a moment to chat with us about her current cinematic likes and plans during her busy schedule with fests and Billy press.

If there is anyone else you'd love to see interviewed, or are an indie filmmaker who would like to chat with us, drop Kim Voynar a line at kim(at)cinematical(dot)com. And please, check out the first post of the series, a Q&A with Deliver Us from Evil director Amy Berg.

What indie films out in theaters, or on DVD, have you been watching lately?

Lately I've been obsessed with Ten by Abbas Kiarostami. It's amazing how the line between documentary and narrative has been blurred. I really love 10 on Ten with the director. I really relate to his vision. Also, I enjoyed Once by John Carney. I thought the performances excellent. I just re-watched one of my favorite films Fat Girl by Catherine Breillat, and I also just re-watched The Five Obstructions by Lars Von Trier.

What's the one indie film from the last year that you'd recommend to friends?

The Lives of Others by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.

What mainstream films have you seen lately that didn't suck?

I've been at film festivals every second or running my casting company, so I've barely seen anything mainstream, but I really want to see Knocked Up. I need to laugh and I heard it's great for that!

Which filmmakers most influenced you in your work?

This question is difficult for me because I am influenced by so many different things. I love John Cassavetes and Robert Altman and am just learning about Kiarostami. I enjoy a lot of films but am most influenced by real life and the characters I see around me every day.

What are you working on now/what's up next for you?

Running my casting company so I can pay for all the debt I'm in from my film. And there's an indie narrative project I'd love to work on but can't mention yet. And I'm working on developing another documentary involving all my casting tapes, auditions, interviews and street scoutings from over the years.

We'll be following Jennifer's new projects, like this mysterious indie narrative she wants to work on, so stay tuned to Cinematical Indie for the scoop.

At the beginning of the month, I reviewed Billy the Kid, Jennifer Venditti's debut documentary about a 15-year-old boy in Maine. It's a very revealing and endearing story; however, it's also one that is awkward and uncomfortable, which can open itself to claims of exploitation. Billy isn't the bubblegum chewing Disney kid, but a young guy with his share of problems. There is domestic violence from his biological father, as well as his own struggles with lashing out. But he's also a pretty smart kid with a really big heart. Granted, his heart makes him yearn to connect with people and often say inappropriate things, but its with genuine innocence.

Well, Variety's John Anderson doesn't agree. Taking the exploitation route, he describes Billy has someone who has escaped institutionalization but doesn't function well or comfortably, and says that Venditti "shows a willful blindness to the agony of adolescence in general and a particular myopia concerning Billy." Beyond his displeasure with the subject, Anderson says that the documentary was masquerading as verite filmmaking: "Almost every scene is a set-up... That the film feels scripted should shock no one." Yesterday, Variety posted a letter to the editor in defense of the film, from the doc's editor, Michael Levine. Of course, he refutes the claims of staged material and says that: "Endless discussion and deliberation was given to make sure her genuine admiration and love for Billy was the lasting reflection from the film."

To me, it was apparent during the Hot Docs Q & A that Venditti thought Billy rocked. She saw his quirks as fresh, where Anderson seems to be reminded of the Virginia Tech tragedy when watching Billy. But this whole thing also brings up a larger question -- when does a film become exploitation, and how much should or can we allow before shutting off? Obviously, we can show more in a fictional context, although when filmmakers push the lines (Dakota Fanning), people will protest. I loved this documentary because although it was painfully honest with Billy's struggles, there was also a lot of heart in it, and I would say that's valuable in a world where we'll jump to black and white to explain something. But I also can't imagine what it would be like, as Billy, to hop on the Internet and see the criticisms and judgments on his actions. It's a slippery slope... What do you think?

Jennifer Venditti is a casting director who found herself in Maine, looking for some interesting teenagers for Carter Smith's short film Bugcrush. While scoping out a local high school, she spoke with a group of bullies who told her about a boy they had harassed. Intrigued, she asked who, and they pointed to Billy. Venditti sat down to speak with him, and the moment he spoke, she realized what a special person was sitting across from her. She followed him through his life for a week, gaining a slew of footage that chronicles the angst of a stellar 15-year-old -- footage asking to be molded into a film that became Billy the Kid.

Of course, making a documentary about a 15-year-old boy raises questions about whether Billy is exposed or exploited. Recording adolescence means grabbing all of those awkward and gut-wrenching moments and molding them into a cinematic whole. Superficially, you could question this film for showing all of Billy's highs and lows -- both his happiness and his vulnerability. However, to do so is to miss what Venditti was trying to achieve, and what I believe she succeeded in doing. The film challenges our assumptions and tendency to stereotype while reminding us of just how great it is to be different. Billy has his struggles and his strangeness, but he's also got a large heart and genuine vision that should be celebrated instead of questioned.