Cinemateque d'youf
Hmm. Matthew Clayfield has posted a quote from a guy called Craig Keller about the need for a 'Cinema of Youth'. I've decided to blog my own response here:
Hmm. I would say that of the four scripts I'm developing concurrently (two of which are short features), all of them are partly about being 'young'. The only one which is borderline is a very cynical treatise on the nature of corruption, violence and politics... and the 'hero' is a young idealist. Heh. Only thinking about it now has made me realise it is subconsciously about the fear that maturity = pragmatism = acceptance of the banality of evil.
... and its not like I'm special in that regard. A lot of my friends have written and/or are developing scripts about youth. I mean, what other world are young people going to write about?
The problem isn't a lack of ideas amongst young filmmakers.. its a lack of an ability to get stuff *made*. There comes a point with most early-mid twenty filmmakers where we can no longer pour thousands of dollars into making short films and yet we're tired of making zero-budget crap. Our only alternative is the scehmes like YFF (which considers a young filmmaker to be under 35) or the AFC.... and the latter is open to everyone.
If I were a film funding body, and we all wish I was, I'd be considering funding MORE scripts with less money. Rather than 4 scripts at $30,000 twice a year (as is with YFF). I'd make a 'low budget' category of 12 films at $10,000... or 24 films at $5,000... and then have the 'mid budget' at $30,000 once a year.
Most of the YFF films I've seen could have easily been made for $10,000 by a bunch of dedicated filmmakers who know how to push every dollar on screen.
That said, a new funding scheme isn't going to change the systematic problems of an opaque script approval process. Just because you fund more films, doesn't mean you're going to fund BETTER films.
All that said, I think a lot of interesting young filmmakers are working in music videos, mograph and short films... but stuff just isn't getting seen.
Of course, what is "intellectually curious youth cinema?"... sounds dangerously like self-important filmschool wank.
Hmm. I would say that of the four scripts I'm developing concurrently (two of which are short features), all of them are partly about being 'young'. The only one which is borderline is a very cynical treatise on the nature of corruption, violence and politics... and the 'hero' is a young idealist. Heh. Only thinking about it now has made me realise it is subconsciously about the fear that maturity = pragmatism = acceptance of the banality of evil.
... and its not like I'm special in that regard. A lot of my friends have written and/or are developing scripts about youth. I mean, what other world are young people going to write about?
The problem isn't a lack of ideas amongst young filmmakers.. its a lack of an ability to get stuff *made*. There comes a point with most early-mid twenty filmmakers where we can no longer pour thousands of dollars into making short films and yet we're tired of making zero-budget crap. Our only alternative is the scehmes like YFF (which considers a young filmmaker to be under 35) or the AFC.... and the latter is open to everyone.
If I were a film funding body, and we all wish I was, I'd be considering funding MORE scripts with less money. Rather than 4 scripts at $30,000 twice a year (as is with YFF). I'd make a 'low budget' category of 12 films at $10,000... or 24 films at $5,000... and then have the 'mid budget' at $30,000 once a year.
Most of the YFF films I've seen could have easily been made for $10,000 by a bunch of dedicated filmmakers who know how to push every dollar on screen.
That said, a new funding scheme isn't going to change the systematic problems of an opaque script approval process. Just because you fund more films, doesn't mean you're going to fund BETTER films.
All that said, I think a lot of interesting young filmmakers are working in music videos, mograph and short films... but stuff just isn't getting seen.
Of course, what is "intellectually curious youth cinema?"... sounds dangerously like self-important filmschool wank.
posted by stu willis at
8:20 pm
2 Comments:
Hey Stu,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. The problem is actually that the funding pool is just too small. It's not that easy to make a film on $30,000, unless everyone works for days (often weeks) for free. This has happened on just about every YFF film I know about. Splitting that money further, will only exacerbate the situation. Unfortunately, we need to think of alternate ways to raise money, or to reassess the way we tell our stories. What I mean is, to continue to make it viable, we have to be aware of our budget constraints. Not that I like the idea that art should be defined by cost. Once out of the university environment, it becomes increasingly difficult to work for no money, especially with the very low employment rate for people in film at the moment. Sure, if you can supplement your income by working on high end commercials, that's great, but with the deregulation of the industry there is less of that kind of work out there. On top of this, as equipment becomes more accessible (and I'm not saying that is a bad thing) more and more people want to join the industry.
So, what's the solution? I don't really know, but we have to think of ways to keep telling our stories, and yet still be able to pay the rent. That's the only realistic path, otherwise it's just not sustainable.
By
Anonymous, at Sat Feb 19, 09:46:00 am AEDT
Splice makes a good point. A rather fundamental one which many "artists" seem to either miss entirely, or gloss over when moaning about "their" funding.
i.e. viability.
There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that people want to actually _watch_ what a moviemaker wants to create, if that moviemaker wants some sort of external funding (e.g. parents, bank, guvmint, investors, etc.) in order to create his vision.
This sort of argument is usually dismissed as crass commercialism, pandering to the LCD, blah blah blah. More often than not, such complaints are really special pleading and an avoidance of the reality that someone, somewhere, somehow is paying for the (alleged) art.
Splice is right -- film makers need to look at the stories they are trying to tell, and why they are telling them. It's not much use trying to tell a story that nobody is interested in, and then being sad that all the funding has dried up. After all, would you invest in something that didn't interest you? I sure wouldn't, and neither would any rational* investor. Sure, that little piece on the sexual objectification of women by a violent patriachial control system is all very interesting to someone (WEL?), as is that piece on the plight of refugees under Howard, but would you put your own credit card on the line to finance it?
(* i.e. an investor that actually wants some ROI some time this century. Therefore, not government funding bodies, arts councils, SBS, uni boards and save-the-whale collectives.)
--your friend and blog assassin, mars
By
Anonymous, at Sun Feb 20, 06:14:00 pm AEDT
Post a Comment
<< Home