Let’s play that game where we compare quotes from two seemingly unrelated stories that happened to come out on the same day and thus seem to say something about the zeitgeist.
First, from an interview with District 9 producer Peter Jackson (via Scott Kirsner):
Peter Jackson: You know, in the old days it was very difficult to make movies ’cause you had to have 35 millimeter cameras, which were phenomenally expensive. Or you had to have rich parents that could send you to film school. Nowadays, anybody, any kid or young person with a desire to make films … (has) access to this equipment. You have great video cameras and the quality’s fantastic. You can make soundtracks and do visual effects. You can do very competent computer effects quite easily.”
Q: What impact do you see this having on Hollywood?
Jackson: “There are no excuses anymore. If people really want to make movies, they can go out and do it. And I think we’re going see in the next 20 or 30 years a real influx of creativity to the world of entertainment because I believe a lot in the young generation coming along … the pop culture generation who now can grab these cameras and go make films with them.
Then, from a story in the NYT by Michael Cieply, titled Independent Filmmakers Distribute on Their Own:
Here is how it used to work: aspiring filmmakers playing the cool auteur in hopes of attracting the eye of a Hollywood power broker.
Here is the new way: filmmakers doing it themselves — paying for their own distribution, marketing films through social networking sites and Twitter blasts, putting their work up free on the Web to build a reputation, cozying up to concierges at luxury hotels in film festival cities to get them to whisper into the right ears.
Cieply’s key example of successful self-distribution is Anvil!:
“I paid for everything, I took a second mortgage on my house,” said Sacha Gervasi, the film’s director.
Mr. Gervasi, whose studio writing credits include “The Terminal,” directed by Steven Spielberg, nearly three years ago, began filming “Anvil!” with his own money in hopes of attracting a conventional distributor. The movie played well at Sundance in 2008, but offers were low.
So Mr. Gervasi put up more money — his total cost was in “the upper hundred thousands,” he said — to distribute the film…
So! You can make a movie! All by yourself! As long as you’re okay with not ever shooting on film! And then you can release it yourself! Because no one’s going to do it for you! And if they do, they won’t pay for TV advertising, so no one who doesn’t follow you on Facebook will ever hear about it! And so after you’ve put up your own small fortune and invested years of your life making the movie on your own, you can then devote at least another year to Twittering about it! And you can spend even more money flying yourself to film festivals so you can hang out in luxury hotels talking to anyone who will listen to you ramble on about it! And in short, it’s a good thing you made money writing a screenplay for Steven Spielberg, so that you have ample cash and time to devote to this endeavor, because without that, your self-distribution gambit might not have been feasible! It’s so great that we live in this time of opportunities for all humans!!!!!!! Are you inspired yet?!?!
It’s ridiculously daunting, isn’t it? You have to write the script. Then you’ve to figure out how to finance. After that, you gotta figure out how to get into festivals. Lastly, when festivals don’t come calling, you gotta figure out how to put it out there yourself and make some sort of profit. Being an indie film/producer is supremely scary. The way thing are set-up right now–with all odds against you–only the completely fiery-some bold ones are going to make it. Scary.. but true.
you’re the reason for that,you’re creating that reality and make it to where exactly? where is there to make it to? why even worry about all these other hurdles….careers, advertising, glad handing, networking that’s why the quality of the films has become subpar, rushed and secondary in importance in the first place. there’s no doubt in my mind that a lot of the films that are championed here could benifit from less concern about marketing and a few more years of actual shooting, absolutely none. just one day of shooting with out all those other concerns would be better than three years of worrying about all that other crap. if you’re bitching about the fact that things are sped up and highly competitive and near impossible it’s because they are when you’re thinking like that. that’s not the way it actually is it’s the way we’re making it. some dipshit keeps complaining when i send him short stories to read that the syntax isn’t good and it takes him to long to read and yet the opening scene of his film is twenty minutes long and he’s crying he can’t get it into festivals. he’s created his own problem. next time he makes a film he should make his opening scene five hours long. then he won’t even have to worry about it….
this is awesome
Michael Cieply is the Times’ joke of a film/tv biz reporter. You may recall the laughably in-the-tank corporate shilling that he tried to pass off as WGA-strike coverage.
Le sigh. and here I thought the pure creation of a piece of art you believed in would be enough for most artists.
[...] A few days back, Karina Longworth expounded on the ironies of low-end filmmaking when the means of production are easier to obtain [...]
Most appropriate use of an exclamation mark I’ve seen all month.
[...] great little rant about DIY film-making by Karina [...]