Rhetoric NOT logic
While I admire Harry's war-cry for its rousing quality, I also find it unsettling. By resorting to rhetoric, rather than logic and empiricism, Harry has ignored the issues raised at the American Director's Panel and that plague the Indie Film Scene.
Firstly, the whining Directors quoted in the Ebert article ARE established and have produced marketable films. The problem is that economic interest in the indie scene is drying up. Its becoming inreasingly hard to find investors and distributors. Probably a reaction to the wealth of crap that the digital revolution has produced. Unfortunately, this is affecting filmmakers who have been successful. I recently spoke to Clara Law, a top notch arty HK filmmaker [see I can name drop too] and she was explaining how hard it is to find finance these days. Even in the hey-day of HK filmmaking (and its late captailist concerns) she could find investors easily. This may be a phase. Or it could be a symptom of a late capitalist society in decay :-)
Secondly, shooting a film is easy and (relatively) cheap. I could shoot a feature on 35mm for $40,000AU. Bringing it to the screen is the expensive part. Anywhere from $1,000,000AU +/- even for just a few screens. You need advertising to get bums in seats in the first week. If you don't, then the cinema's will pull it - regardless of how much 'internet press' you've had. The oligarchial nature of distributors and exhibitors is another *huge* problem for the indie film maker. Art-house cinemas are your only route. Unfortunately, there are 100s of indie-films seeking distributors for a few few spots. The studio/distributor/exhibitor nexus makes the RIAA vs little labels look like a schoolyard brawl. Sure, you can bypass cinema-screenings, and go DTV. Unfortunately, DTV is the exploitation market. Unless you've got violence and/or sex, you're dead in the water. Internet-distributor is a far way off - and I'm yet to see a model which will produce enough income to offset production costs.
Third, the non-professionalisation of producers. Most of what Harry outlined in his article is the concern of the Producer, NOT the Director. A good producer will be considering marketing, audiences, stars, etc. Sadly its difficult to find a good producer. Everyone wants to be a Director or a DoP. Who the hell wants to be a Producer? Its the most thankless job in the industry, indie or otherwise. To paraphrase Art Linson, Robert De Niro doesn't have to call himself a creative actor, so why should we [producers] have to call ourselves creative producers? Indie Film Culture needs to produce an environment healthy to the evolution of Good Producers. Y'know, people who are filmmakers too, and not just business men. Kevin Smith would have been nothing without Scott Mosier and Bob Hawk.
Lastly, I think the mentality propogated by Robert Roderigeuz (and even Harry) of 'you can do it if you want' needs to be toned down. Or at least people need to be made aware that natural selection is rampant in this industry. For every indie hit, there's hundres of misses. Its how it is [yo].
-- by me, posted on AICN in the middle of 2001 in response to a rant by Harry.
Nothing changes, eh? Not just the situation, but my ranting.
Firstly, the whining Directors quoted in the Ebert article ARE established and have produced marketable films. The problem is that economic interest in the indie scene is drying up. Its becoming inreasingly hard to find investors and distributors. Probably a reaction to the wealth of crap that the digital revolution has produced. Unfortunately, this is affecting filmmakers who have been successful. I recently spoke to Clara Law, a top notch arty HK filmmaker [see I can name drop too] and she was explaining how hard it is to find finance these days. Even in the hey-day of HK filmmaking (and its late captailist concerns) she could find investors easily. This may be a phase. Or it could be a symptom of a late capitalist society in decay :-)
Secondly, shooting a film is easy and (relatively) cheap. I could shoot a feature on 35mm for $40,000AU. Bringing it to the screen is the expensive part. Anywhere from $1,000,000AU +/- even for just a few screens. You need advertising to get bums in seats in the first week. If you don't, then the cinema's will pull it - regardless of how much 'internet press' you've had. The oligarchial nature of distributors and exhibitors is another *huge* problem for the indie film maker. Art-house cinemas are your only route. Unfortunately, there are 100s of indie-films seeking distributors for a few few spots. The studio/distributor/exhibitor nexus makes the RIAA vs little labels look like a schoolyard brawl. Sure, you can bypass cinema-screenings, and go DTV. Unfortunately, DTV is the exploitation market. Unless you've got violence and/or sex, you're dead in the water. Internet-distributor is a far way off - and I'm yet to see a model which will produce enough income to offset production costs.
Third, the non-professionalisation of producers. Most of what Harry outlined in his article is the concern of the Producer, NOT the Director. A good producer will be considering marketing, audiences, stars, etc. Sadly its difficult to find a good producer. Everyone wants to be a Director or a DoP. Who the hell wants to be a Producer? Its the most thankless job in the industry, indie or otherwise. To paraphrase Art Linson, Robert De Niro doesn't have to call himself a creative actor, so why should we [producers] have to call ourselves creative producers? Indie Film Culture needs to produce an environment healthy to the evolution of Good Producers. Y'know, people who are filmmakers too, and not just business men. Kevin Smith would have been nothing without Scott Mosier and Bob Hawk.
Lastly, I think the mentality propogated by Robert Roderigeuz (and even Harry) of 'you can do it if you want' needs to be toned down. Or at least people need to be made aware that natural selection is rampant in this industry. For every indie hit, there's hundres of misses. Its how it is [yo].
-- by me, posted on AICN in the middle of 2001 in response to a rant by Harry.
Nothing changes, eh? Not just the situation, but my ranting.
posted by stu willis at
5:31 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home