Comments on: rock & roll is about freedom

By: Anand

Anand — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:49:49 +0000

Creativity need not be restricted to cards.How do u define freedom.. u r not being told wat to do by some financers but what about the need to cater to ur set of audience?Ur article is like one of those Aesop fables ..“Don’t try to cross ur limits(business cards) or u might fail”.Film-making is a bigger platform ..the stakes are bigger…but it all comes down to ur confidence in ur product & how u r able to sell it.

By: m

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:47:12 +0000

Film UK at Edinburgh International Festival did a catalogue of all the UK features made in the last year. Due to digital production it was enormous — I think about 500 ! However.… a goodly number were shite.
You can make films cheaply but even if you can persuade large numbers of people to work for free you STILL have to pay for something. Even the catering bill for that amount of people mounts up. And even if you do make a goodly number of shorts for example on good will and favours they do run out. Even if you do make a living at something else a filmmaker has to finance the time off work.
Scratch many an ‘independent’ film maker in the UK and you will find family money proping them up.

By: mundens

mundens — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:32:30 +0000

Actually, film can be free too.
Our “production company”, basically just a small group of friends some of whom are actually employed in the real film industry, but most are not, has put together two short films this year, one for the 48Hr Film Competition (do the whole thing, script, filming, post production all in 48hrs!), one for another national competition, in which we placed, and we’re just starting our third film for the year for no other reason than because we can!

By: Tim Clague

Tim Clague — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:06:42 +0000

I agree Shawn. There is room for funding. It should be for truly experimental works that push the art form along. It shouldn’t be for ‘standard’ work or we get lazy and rely on it.
But that goes for Hollywood as well where they get A LOT of tax breaks and get away with some pretty dodgy accounting.

By: shawn

shawn — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:34:04 +0000

It's good that tax dollars don't go to people without the old get up and go. I create sculptures, there are lots of grants, but I will never take one, because I believe if you create quality, it will sell. Film is more expensive, but there are always private investors if your work is great. If not, good riddens to you. The film "swingers" was made by a bunch of friends. They used a bit of music from "jaws" when the guy is prowling in a bar, they asked Spielberg for permission. He loved what they had done and the rest is history. I'm an American, by the way. It's all about GUMPTION!!

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:49:07 +0000

I agree it’s getting easier in some ways, Tim.… just not easier in the “British Establishment Critical-Acclaim-Arthouse-Cinema” way.…

By: Tim Clague

Tim Clague — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:35:49 +0000

It is a hard life in film. But its getting easier thanks to new distribution ideas and new marketing ideas. The challenge today is for film makers to be as creative in their funding as in their story telling. I’m off to Sony tomorrow to ask for £600k! We’ll see. But I find that easier than going to the Film Council.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:18:14 +0000

Joe, it’s not just the kids… John Cassavetes made his films that way, too.
British and Europeans filmmakers find Casavetes’ approach much harder, especially when they get older, for whatever reason.
“It’s an expensive hobby.” Love it!

By: Mike Peter Reed

Mike Peter Reed — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:15:30 +0000

Making a good film is bloody hard work. What people also forget, is that making a crappy film is bloody hard work too. And you’re only as good as your last film. It’s an expensive hobby :-/

By: Joe Valdez

Joe Valdez — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:49:28 +0000

I’m not familiar with the workings on European public arts, but independent film in the U.S. is full of tales about kids who collected money from relatives, or ran up credit card debt to make their movies. They didn’t wait for permission, and if they had, they would probably have shared the fate of Terence Davies. They just did it. Brick would be one recent example that was self financed at the production stage, and turned out well for the filmmakers.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:17:58 +0000

When is an actor not an actor? When they’re a waiter.

By: Lemi4

Lemi4 — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:12:12 +0000

Well there’s always cheapo prosumer digicams…

By: churchpundit

churchpundit — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:01:29 +0000

I do paintings and prefer and love to sell them privately. As soon as a gallery “represents” me, I lose almost all my power and freedom and become totally dependent upon their wishes and expectations. Then they take a cut for holding me by the balls. thus spoke churchpundit!

By: Yehuda Berlinger

Yehuda Berlinger — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:30:15 +0000

Reminds me of Mr Casaubon, from Middlemarch (George Elliot).
Yehuda
P.S. One of the all time great books, by the way.