![]() ![]() With a crowd-funded budget, a filmmaker doesn’t have to worry about “the back end”, nor can she be judged by how much money her last picture made, so cutting the toxic bonds of owing money from the process should result in better, freer art.īut will it? Violet Lucca’s list of repetitive visual aesthetics is shocking. He felt that films would continue to be made for their own sake, as art, and – presumably – made available for free. ![]() One of the producers of SLACKER 2011 told me he didn’t think independent film should necessarily be “monetizable” any more. Since 2008 DVD and TV revenues have tanked (at least in this producer’s experience) meanwhile, who has seen substantial revenue, or any revenue, from streams or downloads? We didn’t make any money doing this: but – like screening the film in festivals – it raised the profile of the picture and counted towards better television and video or DVD sales. Vying for what, exactly? A couple of decades ago I and other filmmakers would occasionally “four wall” a film in the cinema. Apparently – while there is comparatively little theatrical market for independent films – the appearance of a theatrical life is crucial in order to differentiate one’s indy New-Yorkers-on-a-caper movie from all the other indy New-Yorkers-on-a-caper movies vying for … for … The same week I read that a New York Times critic was complaining about the paper’s policy of reviewing every feature which plays theatrically in that city. In the new issue of Film Comment, Violet Lucca writes about the narrative fiction films at SXSW: “Over and over, the same tired visual aesthetics – endless two shots, extreme closeups, identical color palettes, soft focus, and bokeh effects - were competently deployed…” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |