Hollywood Hackery

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Message
Author
User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#26 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:25 am

Nothing wrote:schmatrix: ummm.... Blow-Up, Zabriskie Point, The Passenger?!!
That's pushing the definition of 'Hollywood', isn't it? I mean, both Blow-Up and the Passenger were produced by Carlo Ponti, and while American money may have been involved, they certainly weren't made within Hollywood. And obviously Zabriskie Point isn't the kind of movie anybody in Hollywood is going to look back and think 'boy, I wish we still did them like that' about- it lost what, six million dollars? Certainly Antonioni-style artists have never been allowed to run free in Hollywood for any length of time, though I'll agree that the seventies were exceptional in that regard.
nothing wrote:Alright, to take a slightly softer line, one might concede that there is still a place in Hollywood for artistic directors with an incredibly commercial sensibility - the Speilbergs, the Lucases of the present (eg. Bird, Jackson, Nolan, etc - although, actually, none of these guys are even as talented as Spielberg or Lucas, but let's save that for another day...). However, the Malicks, the Lynches, the Antonionis and, yes, the Coppolas (of the Francis Ford kind) are left out in the cold. Thus, to say that 'nothing has changed' (the original statement I was contesting) is patently incorrect.
Has Lynch ever been allowed to work with Hollywood money for any length of time? Again, the big Hollywood movie he made is a famous bomb- and I would argue it was absolutely a compromised picture, on Lynch's part. I'm not clear on whether you're citing those directors specifically (which obviously wouldn't make much sense for Malick) or the would-be modern equivalents of those directors, but I honestly do think the situation is much the same it's always been in that directors only get to make personal films when they've 'earned it' with a big commercial success, or they don't get Hollywood money.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#27 Post by knives » Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:34 am

Yeah, I'd say Antonioni's situation is more analogous to Murnau where they let a foreign wunderkind do what he wanted for a movie before having that new director shine were off and treat him like everyone else. Anotioni was just smart enough to do one and be gone.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#28 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:45 am

matrixschmatrix wrote:Again, the big Hollywood movie he made is a famous bomb- and I would argue it was absolutely a compromised picture, on Lynch's part.
Although wasn't Lynch's Dune, if that's what you were talking about, produced through Dino De Laurentiis's production company (one of the best, if wildly variable, producers out there, who also backed Bergman's The Serpent's Egg as well as Blue Velvet) and then just distributed by Universal? The international distribution clout of a company such as Universal (and the guarantee of the film being released through those channels) might be something not to be sniffed at, but had they actually been financing the production of the film from the start?
Nothing wrote:Alright, to take a slightly softer line, one might concede that there is still a place in Hollywood for artistic directors with an incredibly commercial sensibility - the Speilbergs, the Lucases of the present (eg. Bird, Jackson, Nolan, etc - although, actually, none of these guys are even as talented as Spielberg or Lucas, but let's save that for another day...).
I would add *shudder* Michael Bay to this - I appreciate his films much more now that he is obviously backed by both a toy company and the US armed forces - two sides of the same coin.

I would broadly agree with Nothing on his points, though I like the point brought up a while ago on the way that Hollywood, and film in general, is always collapsing, forcing people to work within a narrow range or encouraging artists to sell out. 'Artistic integrity' might be getting squeezed in a different, and perhaps harder, way now but I would be sympathetic to the idea that perhaps there might be a change somewhere along the line to allow a wider range of films to be produced again (But then the only positive review I've heard of the The Green Lantern so far has been a casual remark on one of the Bloomberg news shows that, whatever the quality of the film, it is going to be a sure fire winner, fulfilling a superhero film gap in the schedule and keeping Warner's stock price high! Note: That film looks terrible in the trailers, but I haven't seen it yet)

It might depend on international co-productions (i.e. with TV companies such as FilmFour, though that was tried and failed), or outside production companies working in collaboration (i.e. Christine Vachon's Killer Films etc), to produce the riskier ventures to then 'present' to the big studios, especially around the time that they are looking for 'prestige' productions around the awards season.

However that does create a very short term view to film production, with the burden becoming greater on the filmmakers themselves to not squander a hard fought for opportunity on a film that might be 'uncommercial' or a flop with interesting non-mainstream ideas that may gain a future cult following or turn out to be far more important and memorable than any Oscar Best Picture winner. The sense that with every film you have to be bettering your last can mean that a filmmaker cannot learn their trade through making mistakes, or the idea that there can be pleasure in watching the (maybe flawed, maybe their best due to being their purest) films by a filmmaker and see them developing towards a mastery of the medium, appears to simply not be there in most cases.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#29 Post by Nothing » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:32 am

It's rather silly to focus on Focus, Searchlight and SPC "doing well" when all of their competition has disappeared over the past 2-3 years. I don't know the exact figures offhand, but the overall number of specialty films released in the US has dropped dramatically since 2008. Also, these companies now prefer to buy the rights to completed films wherever they can, rather than producing or offering a pre-sale, which makes things infinitely more difficult for independent producers - the Dino De Laurentis' and Carlo Ponti's of the world - and makes it a far more risky proposition for these producers to tackle challenging material (although as a Brad Bird > Antonioni fan, I imagine this isn't something that bothers you - which is what this really seems to be all about...)

re: The Social Network btw, it's a good picture (perhaps the only good studio picture since Speed Racer) but Fincher was just a director for hire, eg. I believe he wasn't allowed to change any of the dialogue without Sorkin's say-so and it's hard to believe that Sorkin (and Rudin) didn't have a say in the final cut too.
schmatrix wrote:directors only get to make personal films when they've 'earned it' with a big commercial success, or they don't get Hollywood money.
This really doesn't happen any more. If Soderbergh or Van Sant wants to make a decent film they have to go to France to get the money - and who knows how long that will last either (eg. Wild Bunch were burned pretty badly by Che + they and other French producers are having to adopt an increasingly commercial outlook too, to stay ahead of the tide).

A concept knives should acquaint himself with is the 'superstar premium', something that now applies across all forms of entertainment, sports, etc. I can't claim to fully undestand the economic reasoning, although it has something to do with the globalisation of information sharing through the internet, but, basically, those at the top (in cinema terms, the Dark Knights and Lords of the Ring) are making more money than ever before, whereas everyone and everything a notch below are finding it increasingly hard to capture the global public's attention and therefore to earn a living wage. In this situation, it makes total sense, at least in the short term, for a studio to just put more and more money into their tentpoles, pushing the budgets up into millions and billions of dollars, whilst neglecting to investing in the smaller stuff, which is harder work for a smaller return (if any). In the longer term, of course, this narrowing of opportunities leads to a thinning of the available talent, and I would argue we are already seeing this problem quite starkly in Hollywood, Pixar possibly aside (although boy do they look like a bunch of hucksters next to Miyazaki...).

Colin is right though, of course it would be as stupid to say that things will never change as to say that things haven't changed in the past. Things are constantly changing - and rarely in a predictable fashion over longer stretches of time. Perhaps audiences will grow genuinely tired of superheros and sequels and the studios will start to yearn for some decent scripts and decent filmmaking again. Who knows... But this isn't a change that's going to happen in the foreseeable future (and isn't it equally if not more likely that the whole industry will just implode at some point in the face of digital piracy?)

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#30 Post by John Cope » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:01 pm

And the elephant in the midst of this whole discussion remains Snyder's Sucker Punch, a total masterpiece, the very existence of which would seem to disprove the notion that such things are not possible with studio money. Still, the fact that it was also a massive financial bust would, I suppose, support the opposing contention. Such things indeed will appear more and more as aberrations, slipping through the cracks designed to prevent them from being made if and when they appear at all. Maybe some kind of deceptive strategy (how Snyder undoubtedly pitched this) is a necessity; but, of course, not so if one wants to remain viable and in play in Hollywood.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#31 Post by knives » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:41 pm

I dislike Sucker Punch, but it is true that the old you get a success you're good for a few pictures statement is still true. Maybe it was harder to muck up good will back in the '70s, but it isn't much harder to get it today. This has nothing to do with 'Hackery' though and is getting away from the point I'm trying to make. The quality of the directors today is no different from any other period.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#32 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:50 pm

Nothing wrote:re: The Social Network btw, it's a good picture (perhaps the only good studio picture since Speed Racer)
you do realize that your addiction to spouting such ridiculous Armondisms renders everything else you type irrelevant right? There was not a SINGLE good movie released in the two and a half years between the release of these two? Not one?

nonsense.
John Cope wrote:And the elephant in the midst of this whole discussion remains Snyder's Sucker Punch, a total masterpiece, the very existence of which would seem to disprove the notion that such things are not possible with studio money. Still, the fact that it was also a massive financial bust would, I suppose, support the opposing contention.
I think "disaster" is a more appropriate description of Sucker Punch, and I think the critical arena agrees. It was an incomprehensible hot mess. Your adulation remains the only i've seen anywhere that takes it to such heights as to think it a "masterpiece." Even it's defenders seem to say little more than "but dude, hot chicks and dragons and shit!"
Last edited by HistoryProf on Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#33 Post by knives » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:54 pm

Maybe he hasn't seen Scott Pilgrim, or Super, or Shutter Island, or maybe Greenberg and possibly not even The Informant amongst dozens of others? In other news I need to learn how to start ignoring Nothing.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#34 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:07 pm

Glad you mentioned The Informant...very underrated gem. Also: A Serious Man, The American, the very surprising Let Me In remake, Easy A, The Town, Inception, Moon, The Road, Star Trek, Zombieland, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Inglorious Basterds, and Up in the Air - among plenty of others i'm sure. Not saying any of the above are "masterpieces" but they all at the very least broach the line of "good".
Last edited by HistoryProf on Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#35 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:29 pm

Actually, Duncan Jones is a pretty exciting director to me- he's working more or less within Hollywood, and he's two for two on thoughtful, entertaining movies made within a broadly Hollywood mode.

I think it's hard to see who the up-and-coming directors are, because we by definition don't know where they're going yet- it's hard to apply auteur theory to a director who's only made one or two movies. But Jones seems like a solid counter-example to Nothing's argument that the studios have no time to foster smaller directors with smaller budgets, and I do suspect that bottlenecking money into huge tentpole films is a cyclical matter- Hollywood's first and foremost goal is risk evasion, and if a couple of tentpoles crash, they'll be terrified to spend that much on any one movie for a decade.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#36 Post by MichaelB » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:46 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:Hollywood's first and foremost goal is risk evasion, and if a couple of tentpoles crash, they'll be terrified to spend that much on any one movie for a decade.
Which is essentially what happened in the late 1960s, in parallel with Easy Rider sweeping all before it. Though I suspect that's a historical accident that's unlikely to be repeated.

hollyharry
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#37 Post by hollyharry » Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:22 pm

knives wrote:Maybe he hasn't seen Scott Pilgrim, or Super, or Shutter Island, or maybe Greenberg and possibly not even The Informant amongst dozens of others? In other news I need to learn how to start ignoring Nothing.
Shutter Island aside, I have to repeat what MichaelB said above, I don't think you're making a particularly good case against Nothing.

Also, Super is not a Hollywood film.

Anyway, I think what Nothing says is true, and it is a problem, and to ignore it is to do movies a disservice in the long run.

As G.K. Chesterton once said,

"The really practical statesman does not fit himself to existing conditions, he denounces the conditions as unfit".

The only hope I can see for American Cinema, which is dismal at the moment, is for the progress and affordability of new technology to take Film out of the industrial machine, and help young filmmakers who want to make movies about ideas and change the notion of what a movie can be aesthetically. But the only movies that seem to getting made by young directors "independently" now are about nothing more than talking about relationships, that fail to engage with the world.

That's the key difference between films of the last 20 years and films of the 60's and 70's that nobody seems to bring up. Filmmakers 40, 50 years ago dealt with the world around them, they grappled with ideas, but with the fall of the Berlin Wall, what came with it was an ideological comfort and complacency, and as a result, movies became about themselves (homage), or they became about the minor problems of their "demographic" (an absurd notion that people inexplicably take seriously) or about filling some sort of niche. Film and Art, in general, became compartmentalized and commodified, losing it's critical relation to society. It's clear we've hit a wall, and that there needs to be a significant amount of directors making movies about something more than just "I liked a movie like this one time".

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#38 Post by knives » Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:31 pm

The failure of Heaven's Gate made a major shift in what type of movies get that sort of money to this day really so failures causing restructures isn't too rare of a thing. Though for a restructure of that level either a large series of failures needs to happen, meaning this year won't be the one, or a failure that closes down a studio would be needed. Either way I suppose I agree that we're stuck with what we're stuck with at least for a while.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#39 Post by Nothing » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:45 pm

knives wrote:the old you get a success you're good for a few pictures statement is still true... The quality of the directors today is no different from any other period.
In the face of a reasoned argument just repeat yourself - good tactic!

John, I haven't, um, seen Sucker Punch (deeply disliked Watchmen and 300)... However the presence of scantily-clad pubescents kicking the shit out of each other should go a long way to explaining the studio's interest...
History Prof & knives wrote:Scott Pilgrim, Super, Shutter Island, Greenberg, The Informant, A Serious Man, The American, Let Me In, Easy A, The Town, Inception, Moon, The Road, Star Trek, Zombieland, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Inglorious Basterds and Up in the Air.
Moon isn't a studio picture either (and Zowie Bowie is an ad-land journeyman riding on his father's coat tails). I'll give you Inglourious Basterds (although it's no Jackie Brown), but Tarantino is a special case if ever there was one. He's the Weinsteins' golden egg, the picture was only part-financed by a studio, and of course we're still talking genre genre genre. Can't say much for the rest of your list, sorry... Taste aside, it is obvious that none of these films compare to Zabriskie Point or Apocalypse Now (or Schindler's List for that matter).

And I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't share hollyharry's optimism about 'democratisation' through technology (although it's a great line to help Sony sell Camcorders). If anything, the idea of "user generated content" is the biggest problem of all, perpetuating the idea that anyone can make a specialty film for pretty much nothing these days, and that said films should then be judged instantly on You Tube - whereas The Tree of Life demonstrates the exact opposite on both fronts: that great art has always been divisive and slow to digest, and that, especially in a world saturated with moving images, it takes real time and money to push the boundaries of cinematic art.

Nb. If you want to do a case study, you could do worse than to compare your beloved Cianfrance with P T Anderson. Both made relatively small, relatively well-received first features that broke out of the arthouse-indy ghetto and drew some attention without making a fortune. Anderson's film perhaps demonstrates a filmmaking craft that isn't as present in the other (Blue Valentine's entire aesthetic seems to be designed around striking the grip team from the budget), but the two are broadly comparable. So far so good. But then we arrive at Boogie Nights: this is the film that would never ever get made in 2011: a relatively big budget, near-three-hour director-driven drama about a controversial subject from a relatively untried young writer-director. If you proposed such a thing today - even with Scorsese himself at the helm! - the studios (and everyone else) would think you were out of your fucking tree. And, as we can see, Cianfrance's second feature, following his 'breakout' success is going to be... that's right, another low budget indy (the same goes for Kelly after the success of Wendy & Lucy).
Last edited by Nothing on Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#40 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:53 pm

Ah, good old elitism, I hadn't gotten enough of it today. How much funding did Eraserhead have? That was essentially a homemade film.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#41 Post by knives » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:54 pm

Nothing wrote:
knives wrote:the old you get a success you're good for a few pictures statement is still true... The quality of the directors today is no different from any other period.
In the face of a reasoned argument just repeat yourself - good tactic!
Image
Nothing wrote:
History Prof & knives wrote:Scott Pilgrim, Super, Shutter Island, Greenberg, The Informant, A Serious Man, The American, Let Me In, Easy A, The Town, Inception, Moon, The Road, Star Trek, Zombieland, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Inglorious Basterds and Up in the Air.
Moon isn't a studio picture either (and Zowie Bowie is an ad-land journeyman riding on his father's coat tails). I'll give you Inglourious Basterds (although it's no Jackie Brown), but Tarantino is a special case if ever there was one. He's the Weinsteins' golden egg, the picture was only part-financed by a studio, and of course we're still talking genre genre genre. Can't say much for the rest of your list, sorry... Taste aside, it is obvious that none of these films compare to Zabriskie Point or Apocalypse Now (or Schindler's List for that matter).
What.
You admit to not even seeing these films and you claim that? I'm not sure if what you're doing can even be claimed to go as far as spouting rhetoric even. You leave me speechless with your false view of fact (for instance how can you claim that Jones is riding his father's coat tails when he's done everything possible to distance himself from his father?) The way you switch around truth to suite your view of the world is obnoxious and trying. You're not even worth talking to and I will henceforth cease to do so.

hollyharry
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#42 Post by hollyharry » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:12 am

Nothing wrote:
knives wrote:the old you get a success you're good for a few pictures statement is still true... The quality of the directors today is no different from any other period.
And I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't share hollyharry's optimism about 'democratisation' through technology (although it's a great line to help Sony sell Camcorders).
Wasn't really thinking of Sony Camcorders per se, was thinking more along the lines of the quality of HD Cameras improving. Thinking less YouTube, more "Che".

I think this technological progression might be comparable to the lightweight film cameras developed after World War II, without which, many films probably wouldn't have been possible, or at least as likely.

I agree with you on YouTube actually, and I'm not really sure where you found in my post that I felt films should be judged instantly. I agree with you it takes time and work to push the boundaries of cinematic art, but I hope in the future money will be less of a factor. I don't think a film's aesthetic should be defined by it's budget, and I think one has to hope for a world where the only limits of a film is the imagination of it's author. I think Jean Cocteau once said something to the extent of "Film will never truly be an Art Form until it's materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper".

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#43 Post by Nothing » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:18 am

Eraserhead was funded by the AFI.

Which is not to say that it's not possible to make a decent first feature (with a lot of effort and a lot of favours) for, say, $100,000. The problem is that the director of that film will then be expected to make their next one for the same amount, and the next (asuming the first one generates enough You Tube hits :roll:)... Under which circumstance is it any wonder that reasonably talented directors end up just making Godzilla movies in order to actually put some food on the table. And call it elitism if you want, but I think that tastemakers are an unfortunate necessity given the amount of product that exists and I'd rather that job fell to seasoned festival programmers than to a bunch of spotty teenage boys browsing for the next thing to masturbate over.
knives wrote:You admit to not even seeing these films and you claim that?
I've seen Scott Pilgrim, Greenberg, The American, Let Me In, The Town, Inception, Moon, The Road, Star Trek and Zombieland, all were execrable. I've also seen Shutter Island, A Serious Man and Fantastic Mr. Fox, which were unadventurous, mediocre films by old Hollywood hands.
hollyharry wrote:Thinking less YouTube, more "Che".
Che cost $80m 8-[

hollyharry
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#44 Post by hollyharry » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:28 am

Nothing wrote:
hollyharry wrote:Thinking less YouTube, more "Che".
Che cost $80m 8-[
Using an example of a Red One film. Maybe "My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?" (underrated, by the way!) would have been a better example (which still cost a couple of million or so, because they paid the cast and crew of course).

Anyway, my point is that it's becoming plausible to make a good looking film for about $20,000 or so, with a small crew, if you don't have the luxury of paying everyone a lot of money.

By Soderbergh's own account, he had a very small crew, and I'm not exactly sure the percentage renting the camera had to with it's budget (I have to imagine the set pieces, air travel, paying cast, including a pretty big star, accommodations, props, special effects, etc. had more to do with it than the Red).

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#45 Post by HistoryProf » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:52 am

Nothing wrote:I've seen Scott Pilgrim, Greenberg, The American, Let Me In, The Town, Inception, Moon, The Road, Star Trek and Zombieland, all were execrable.
But Speed Racer....THAT'S a masterpiece! ](*,) \:D/ ](*,)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#46 Post by knives » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:53 am

He probably liked the politics though that's easily the weakest aspect of the movie.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#47 Post by Nothing » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:01 am

As I believe I've mentioned before, the cut from Royalton's line about "the unassailable might of money" to a monstrously expensive and gaudy CGI composite of a fat kid and a chimp riding a hoverboard beats anything in Film Socialisme :P

Grand Illusion
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#48 Post by Grand Illusion » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:11 am

Regardless of the quality of the films--I think A Serious Man and Blue Valentine are exemplary films--it's pretty clear that some things have changed in Hollywood. If you attend any industry panel or talk to lit agents, they'll echo the same sentiments, especially emphasizing that the "1-5 million dollar indie film" is dead.

A number of factors are involved, of course: Lower sales of DVD leading to less projects that can make their money back appealing to a niche demographic (i.e. fans of experimental film). Conversely, the ever-diminishing duration of theater runs. The constant appeal for low-risk intellectual properties, which has signaled the death of the original screenplay and the pandering to existing audiences of books/videogames/comics/etc. Closing of specialty studios. Strengthening of tent poles. The fact that "drama" has become a dirty word. Lesser sales at Sundance and similar markets (although supposedly this year there was a small uptick).

Lower technology, also, has become a double-edged sword. There are some good unknown indie films out there, but, despite sales and deals from festivals lowering, there are more submissions than ever before. And in the marketplace, low budget films now have to also compete against a glut of other low budget films made from the same boom in technology, often falling into safe-money genres like "urban," action, or horror.

As for festivals and tastemakers vs YouTube, both are horrible, but necessary. There's certainly a lot of content out there. Festivals and tastemakers are certainly prone to politics in what is perhaps the most incestuous business in the world. I live in LA. It's a real small place. On the other hand, do we really want films competing with the instant gratification of seeing a kitten getting tickled or a monkey pissing into its own mouth?

Films require a level of immersion and engagement that can't be upheld when other such videos are a click away. The dark theater almost requires that you pay attention to the film. However, democracy can be a good thing and uncover some gems. Tastemakers have panned films that people on this forum will go on to love. But further complicating things, as we'll see with the so-called Arab Spring, is that democracy not always going to obtain the desired results when people are uneducated or have different values.

hollyharry
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#49 Post by hollyharry » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:12 am

Nothing wrote:Eraserhead was funded by the AFI.

Which is not to say that it's not possible to make a decent first feature (with a lot of effort and a lot of favours) for, say, $100,000. The problem is that the director of that film will then be expected to make their next one for the same amount
Now, what is wrong with this exactly? If you can make a great film for that amount of money, then it should be no issue to make another. I think what you're actually saying is indicative of why we have so many dilettantes as filmmakers and not actual artists. They're making their debut as some sort of calling card, a "please let me play with the big boys" plea, and not the work being an end itself. It is the death of Cinema as a possibility outside of Hollywood. All the stuff with the industry will take care of itself, filmmakers should not be concerned with it, since they have no control over it, only the work is their problem. Industry problems, production apparatuses, distribution, etc. is something that is in transition, and one simply has to let it take it's course.

One of the reasons why there are so few great artists in Cinema's short history, relatively speaking, is because film has been so hampered by an industrial process. So, essentially, the Hart Cranes, the James Joyces, the Vincent van Goghs (not these artists literally obviously, the idea of these artists) have never come to film because they simply could never function in that system (it's a miracle that someone like Malick has). The only hope isn't You Tube or whatever the hell, it isn't the democratization of media or whatever it is you think I'm talking about. I'm not thinking about trends or anything like that. It's simply the notion that taking a 35mm quality camera and making a film( a real film, not a recorded screenplay, but a film that writes with the camera and the montage in a Bressonian sense) is as affordable as picking up a canvas and a paintbrush. This seems like a possibility to me.

Now, for some pessimism.

Maybe Hollywood will one day, out of economic desperation, start letting the inmates run the asylum (which is basically what happened in the 70's), but the culture as a whole has to change. The reason why say, The Godfather, is one of the greatest films ever made is because it combines pulpish material with a genuine attempt by a young director to make a Great Work Of Art. This ambition, this attempt to make films about ideas existed then because of the culture before it. There seems to me, nothing comparable in today's "culture" to the seeds that were sewn in the 50's and then eventually, the 60's. With this, I don't think you'll be in disagreement.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Hollywood Hackery

#50 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:18 am

Nothing wrote:I've seen Scott Pilgrim, Greenberg, The American, Let Me In, The Town, Inception, Moon, The Road, Star Trek and Zombieland, all were execrable. I've also seen Shutter Island, A Serious Man and Fantastic Mr. Fox, which were unadventurous, mediocre films by old Hollywood hands.
Claiming that those movies are all obviously far inferior to Schindler's List, Apocalypse Now, and Zabriskie Point- "taste aside"- is inane. That's obviously, unambiguously, and entirely a matter of taste, and your taste is, shall we say, idiosyncratic- you can't claim that you can somehow step outside of it to make absolute judgments. Particularly when you also claim candy colored nonsense like Speed Racer is also superior to all those things.


Grand Illusion:

I'm certainly willing to concede that things are different now than they were say, ten years ago. What I am not willing to concede- and what Nothing seems to be arguing- is that those differences mean that, with the exception of the remnants of the filmmaking generation of the 70s, nothing of value can come out of Hollywood anymore.

Post Reply