Shari Frilot is a filmmaker and programmer. She was the director of the NewYork
MIX Experimental Lesbian & Gay Film Festival for five years,
andcontinues to serve on its directorial board. She currently works as a programmer for Outfest
(the Los Angeles Lesbian & Gay Film Festival), and for MIX International Film Festivals.

She is scheduled to begin work in the fallon a new film called STRANGE AND CHARMED,
and is also working on a documentarycalled RACING SCIENCE.
She has curated a program of lesbian shorts for theSeventh Annual Tokyo International
Lesbian & Gay Film Festival called FUNNYBONE, and will be in Tokyo to present
the first screening of that program on May 10.

−You have been involved in lesbian and gay film festivals in a number of different roles over the years....as a filmmaker, a curator, a programmer and a festival director. Recently you moved from New York where you had directed the NY MIX Experimental Lesbian & Gay Film Festival for several years, to L.A. where you are programming for Outfest.

Among L&G film festivals in the U.S., these two fall on almost completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Where MIX has a format that emphasizes experimental film and work by people of color, Outfest has a reputation for being more mainstream.

What do you think accounts for the very different characters of these two festivals, both ofthem serving queer communities? In what kinds of directions do you see eachof these festivals heading in the next several years?

SF: There are a variety of reasons why MIX and OUTFEST are so different. At their inception, their mandates were different - MIX being specifically committed to experimental work by gays and lesbians and OUTFEST more generally committed to work by, for and about gays and lesbians. MIX has always been a filmmaker's festival, the programming and anciliary activities focusing primarily on the experience of the filmmaker at the festival, where OUTFEST has been more focused on audiences. But I think the factor that is most important when considering the different characters of the two festivals is their location: OUTFEST is in Los Angeles, the home of the Hollywood entertainment industry. The industry is reflected on all levels of this festival - board members and volunteers alike hail from companies like Grammercy Pictures, Dreamworks, NBC, Orion, Paramount and Mandalay. MIX on the other hand is a downtown Manhattan phenomenon steeped in experimentation and resistance to the mainstream. The board of MIX is made up primarily of filmmakers, but also includes club promoters, and performers... and an accountant, of course.

In terms of the directions of these two festivals, if they both see the best of days ahead, they will continue to hurl away from each other in opposite directions and I think this is a good thing. MIX has been and will probably continue to be the leading showcase of experimental films, videos and new media in the world. In the past four or five years, the festival has become increasingly interested in showing excellent experimental media regardless of gay content. It will also continue to expand traditional festival venues as they develop their on-line exhibition and installation programs. I think to have an American festival on the gay circuit that is dedicated to the raw, fresh, cutting edge is extremely important, especially now that gay film in the mainstream is formally and thematically stagnating.

OUTFEST on the other hand has shifted their mandate to concentrate on "building bridges between audiences, filmmakers, and the entertainment industry." In other words, it is probably going to become more Hollywood. I think this is a valuable thing as well. OUTFEST is in the unique position to provide gay and lesbian filmmakers access to the entertainment industry in a way that other festivals are not simply because they are in and of the industry itself. For filmmakers who are interested in targetingmore mainstream audiences and/or who want to make their projects commercially successful, OUTFEST is becoming a tremendous opportunity to meet people to help them do just this. I think ultimately, this festival will become increasingly important to companies who seek to cultivate and distribute queer work. As OUTFEST strives to broaden it's programming, this may just impact the kinds of films coming out of hollywood down the line.

SF: Well, it is very different! I spent the last six or seven years in New York City and it was time for a break. I enjoy and miss the fast pace of the big apple and being bombarded with new ideas and images everytime I leave my apartment. I think I must always have nyc in my life somehow. But I have to say that the pace and structure of living here in Southern California has enabled me to focus much more on my own filmmaking and I am very happy about that. Living here is much more compartmentalized and less random - much more controlable so I can successfully carve out time and space to do my own thing without the demands and seductions of the big city at the door. It is a lot easier physically to live here (except for the air which is rotting my lungs) and I love the big sky and the vast purple sea - it is a great inspiration! The natural beauty that is accessibly from L.A. is astounding!

EF: Your work has taken on a more international cast recently, with your involvement with MIX Mexico and MIX Brasil, and your visit to Japan as a special guest curator for the Tokyo International Lesbian & Gay Film Festival. In some ways the production and distribution to non-Western/non-First World countries of European and American (especially American) "L&G film" has seemed to replicate the near-global-monopoly Hollywood has exercised in mainstream film for decades. Just as Hollywood is able to define just what "mainstream"film really is, so American queer cinema has seemed to lay out the parameters of what constitutes lesbian and gay film. As you work with queer filmmakers and festivals outside the U.S., do you see this beginning to change?

SF: My programming work with the MIX international film festivals has up to now been mainly focused on short experimental media. The programs I provide for those festivals (for Brasil 2 - 4 programs a year, for Mexico, 10-15) tend to marginally reflect what is going on in the gay mainstream in Europe and America. I may become involved with bringing more features to these festivals but they will be works which I find challenging and which I think has something unique to offer audiences in these countries. For instance, I urged MIX MEXICO to program the feature film FEMALE PERVERSIONS, a film considered to bean art house title here in the States.

I can only hope that the programming I provide to the MIX International Film Festivals will influence filmmakers in these countries to produce new and interesting alternatives to what one might call American mainstream queer film. But really, I think filmmakers in Brasil and Mexico have been and are already doing this without my help, thank you very much. Queerness and transgressive sexuality is thought of in very different ways in these countries and it prevents films made in these traditions from being pat and predictable around sexual themes. If anything, I think American filmmakers can learn a lot from what is being produced international filmmakers around the theme of queerness.

EF: You mentioned to me at one point that for a long time you purposely avoided watching feature films so that youcould develop your own vision of what you wanted to say in your work, and how you wanted to say it. Do you find that that strategy paid off for you?

SF: Yes, I think this strategy has definitely paid off, if not only on a level of building confidence in myself as an artist. Being multiracial, lesbian, and from Denver, Colorado, I grew up feeling excluded from anything I saw that was valued on television, at the museaum, or in the theatre. To develop as an artist, I personally felt I had to invest not in what I saw around me, but in developing an artistic vision in which I felt comfortable and creatively challenged. It seemed (and still does seem often enough) that the media refuses to acknowledge that I exist, much less that my existance is important. So avoiding mainstream films was a kind of protection of my artistry and self esteem. When I finally developed my own work and my own style, it propelled me into a community where other work is being done that values and privledges people like me. And now, as I see more and more work, I find that I actually managed to create something that is formally and thematically unique too. I even see up and coming artists borrowing from my style. I feel very good about this.

EF: Do you find that your work in programming has changed the way you approach filmmaking?

SF: I think the reverse is more true. I started out as a collage artist using images from magazines and newspapers. My style emphasizes juxtapositions of extremes and multiple perspectives on a given theme. I think this is how I curate programs. Curating programs is almost like making a film for me. But I think the last tape I made, BLACK NATIONS/QUEER NATIONS? evidences the influence of being a curator on my work. This tape, I did as a service for a conference under the same name. The purpose of this tape was to make the conference accessible to a wider audience. Well, I thought if we are going to make the text of the conference widely accessible, better yet to also introduce the work of black gay filmmakers who take up the themes of the conference in their work. So this tape is half talking heads and half a collage of a number of works made by black queer filmmakers. This is not something I plan to regularly do, but I think it worked very well in that piece.

EF: Could you tell us a little about your next film?

SF: Well, I'm working on two projects at the moment. One is a narrative film called STRANGE & CHARMED and it is about framing very personal stories with fantastic aspects of our physical world. If all goes well, this will go into production this fall. I also have a documentary in development called RACING SCIENCE which examines the influence of science on the development of racial attitudes in America.

EF: Any plans to move towards making feature length work, or will you stick with the short format? What is it that you find appealing about making shorts?

SF: Frankly, I am not sure what STRANGE & CHARMED is going to turn into. My scripts always run much shorter than the end work. WHAT IS A LINE was a four page script and it turned into a ten minute piece. BN/QN? was fifteen pages and it turned into a 55 minute piece. STRANGE & CHARMED is scripted at thirty-five pages and I'm hoping to turn it into a half hour piece. But we'll see what happens. I am resolved to let the piece develop in the way that will best articulate it's vision.