It the shoe fits K, it fits (see early Mailer-Baldwin dust-ups) I don’t know if it is condescending and preys on White Guilt but it certainlly sounds like it.

The film language seems pure from what I have read, though.

JB

Once again, Glenn, you’ve inferred that I’ve said something that I have not said. This is probably more my fault than yours; I’ll do my best to clarify.

The Darjeeling Limited is a film *about* three rich white kids’ vision of India, which Armond White loved. I brought that up because Wells seemed to be trying to use White as supporting evidence to the thesis that brown people should never be looked at through white eyes.

You and I are in agreement that “using an artist’s social standing as a tool of artistic evaluation is wholly fallacious.” I don’t know how or where I gave the impression otherwise.

Karina: Yes, I misinterpreted you. I appreciate the clarification. Sorry for the mixup. It’s just that Wes A. gets that “rich kid” stuff thrown at him so often.

“Hammer is “a rich kid,” a producer friend told me yesterday. It all fits”

HELL NO

He bitched about sending me a damn screener of his damn movie, it costs $25 to send it to South Africa, and I doubt if he were rich he’d have a problem with that. He’s a pretentious jerk, but that has nothing to do with his film, which I am sure is great.

This is a complex topic.

Perhaps I misunderstand her intentions, but for me, the blog author’s original statement that “smearing a self-distributed indie… is pure bad form” is rather naive.

The “indie” label means very little nowadays, except as a marketing tool that’s been co-opted by distribution companies. For me, the question of a filmmaker’s economic privilege becomes relevant when their work has been feted in just about every major festival for the past year, and the filmmaking just may not stand up to all the hype.

With economic privilege often comes influence, power, and connections. I know nothing about Lance Hammer’s personal finances, nor do I care But having seen the film, I’m baffled by the phenomenally positive reviews that it has received. Comparisons to Bergman and the Dardennes Brothers are pretty crazy in my opinion. If indeed Hammer does come from a wealthy background, that would start to explain for me the reception that this flawed film has received.

That said, I don’t want this to come off as a screed against filmmakers who have money. Wealth and privilege give any filmmaker an upper hand. It’s just a fact of life, especially in the so-called “indie” world.
For example, I understand that “Down to the Bone” was largely financed by the personal wealth of the filmmaker’s family. In that case, the resulting work was, in my opinion, under rated and under appreciated. I say more power to the makers of that film - I look forward to their next project.

Personally (and I say this coming from a working class family background) I’m offended by two recent over-hyped and overrated “indie” films that portray underprivileged characters - I’m talking here about Ballast and Frozen River. (If you didn’t like Ballast, I suggest that you stay away from Frozen River - it takes condescension to the “underclasses” to a new low.)

its great to see discussion around any art, this just means it is hitting a chord with people, regardless of what that chord may be. i don’t know any of you, or anyone else who has been spoken about in the threads below (White, Wells or Longworth), but i do happen to know Lance.

the guy made a great film that will be talked about and watched for years to come, and that is simply my opinion. its bogus to write someone off based on where they come from (socially, economically, etc), just as it is bogus to give someone too much credit for funding a film themselves (which Lance did, with a small bit of help). let the piece stand on its own and judge it from there.

here’s another opinion: i hear some people talking about someone they don’t know:

Wells says: Hammer is “a rich kid,” a producer friend told me yesterday.

and from one of the posts below, Nick Plowman says: He bitched about sending me a damn screener of his damn movie, it costs $25 to send it to South Africa, and I doubt if he were rich he’d have a problem with that. He’s a pretentious jerk, but that has nothing to do with his film, which I am sure is great.

if you don’t know what, or who, you are talking about, hold your judgements and take an honest look at yourself. Lance took almost 10 years to make this film, saved all of his own damn money and did what he had to do to make his film. there might be a reason why he doesn’t want to spend $25 sending screeners to everyone who asks for one: because he just spent his life savings making this film, because he is trying to raise more money to self-distribute his film, to blaze new trails for other filmmakers to follow in. he is taking HUGE risks because he did not want to give his film away, (which is very understandable since he ‘wrote’, produced, edited and directed). the distribution world is in shambles, and here is a guy with a film that has the momentum behind it to help create some new avenues of “how to get one’s work out into the world”.

i’m going to stop now, because i realize i sound like a defensive friend (i am). but i want to say that some of this negative talk isn’t good for anyone, and what the “indie”/low-budget film world needs right now is more people coming together with good ideas creating new models of everything (distribution, financing, marketing, etc), not un-justified, judgements and negativity. if we want that, we can just into politics…