Film, especially in the United States, has always had an inseparable and uneasy relationship between what people consider "art" and "entertainment". I will not attempt to make any sweeping statements about what constitutes art or entertainment because no matter what ideas I read about and tend to agree with at one time or another, I inexorably find exceptions and contradictions within such theories. The one criteria I'll put forth is that "entertaining" films are generally more geared towards making money than "art" films.
As an aspiring filmmaker myself, I struggle with what kind of films I would like to make. Although I'm not whole-heartedly an idealist (I eat meat even though I think it is immoral), I've always leaned towards wanting to make art films because the films I love and hold dear are the ones commonly referred to as "art". If I had to choose, I'd rather be making films I like and have no money than making films where I compromise my ideas and "artistic vision" for films that will make lots of money. Okay, so I'm idealist.
But there have been many great filmmakers who could have virtually complete control over their films and become wealthy simultaneously. Alfred Hitchcock is the epitome of this type. His films were hugely successful, very well received, and now considered some of the best films ever made. This was possible because Hitchcock's artistic vision was also commercially viable and one that people found entertaining in addition to artful.
Hitchcock's American counterpart might be Orson Welles (these 2 directors are consistently rated above all other directors in critics' and directors' polls). Other than his first film, Citizen Kane - which he made at the age of 26 and is now considered the best film of all time - he hardly ever had control over his films because he could never find funding for the kinds of films he wanted to make or after making a film, the studio in charge would considerably reedit his film.
There is also the filmmaker who supports his artistic endeavors with blockbuster successes. Steven Soderbergh is perhaps the greatest example; Becoming one of the faces of American independent film in the late 80's, over the last few years he has alternated between making the star-studded Ocean's 11 movies with small low-budget artsy films like Bubble.
Assuming I become a competent writer and/or director (let's play along), I know I would never like to make my living making Hollywood films. The few Hollywood films being made today that I do like are just not stylistically what I'm interested in making myself (sorry mom and dad). One of the paradoxes of independent filmmaking is that it is equally bent on making money albeit on a smaller scale. No one is going to fund your film if they don't stand a chance of getting their money back, no matter how "good" you are.
So what can I conclude? Hollywood sucks but other non-Hollywood (independent) modes of filmmaking suffer the from the same problems. So I'll have to rob banks on the side.
"I've got a peculiar weakness for criminals and artists, neither takes life as it is. Any tragic story has to be in conflict with things as they are."
-Stanley Kubrick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The director, “Cristian Mungiu” who won 07` Golden Palm in Cannes Film Festival by his film, “4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days” says that he has to work day and night at advertise company in order to get some money which making film needs. (’course the film is made by not much money within short period.) He says that although working at advertise company makes his creativity exhausted, he are happy, because he can make films.
Reading through your post, it reminded me that we, artists, have so much in common no matter what kind of art we specialize in. In music, popular and commercial music is more geared towards money making than art making. As a jazz musician myself, I sometimes wonder if I should stop studying and playing jazz, and start a new career of popular music that people listen to more—like rap with throbbing bass you hear from cars stopped at traffic lights next to you. Also I cannot agree with you more on your comment, “No one is going to fund your film if they don’t stand a chance of getting their money back, no matter how “good” you are.” It’s the same story in jazz. In jazz, unless you’re very young and talented and “prodigy” of some sort who can dazzlingly play fast or you’re playing with very famous musicians, they are not putting a show for you!
Post a Comment