DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? HOW DO WE DEFINE "SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS" FILMMAKING? Two accountants recently told me that the IRS is questioning (as they tended to do so years ago) whether filmmakers are hobbyists or professionals. They determine this on the basis of whether or not profits are made on a sustainable basis. Most obviously, one of the main issues facing our industry is supply and demand—too many people willing to work for low wages in an industry in which there is too little demand in comparison to what is produced. Certainly, the indie doc economy has been impacted by oversupply, due in part by lower barriers to entry created by myriad of technological changes, and an ever-changing media landscape. But given that we operate as members of a ‘progressive’ community, should our industry be held to a higher standard than simply succumbing to predominant market forces? If not, how can professional careers be sustained? Maybe they cannot. Perhaps independent doc filmmaking will parallel higher education employment. As NPR reported today, college instructors are increasingly hired as adjunct professors and being paid as much as babysitters in major urban areas, all while tuitions skyrocket. (I taught a graduate class at Columbia for a semester…we didn’t do it for the pay.) Fearing being ‘black-listed’, adjuncts have kept silent until now. NPR noted that a coalition is forming among low paid workers such as fast food workers—groups who often seek government assistance to make ends meet. For many years now I have felt that the doc community operates in such a way that it is untrue to progressive ideals in both word and deed. How many filmmakers can afford to pay employees proper compensation, health insurance o... ... middle of paper ... ... write write and we can talk talk talk but who REALLY knows how our industry functions until we have hard data. Besides, filmmakers are so reluctant to talk so as not to disclose their own tightly held, valuable relationships/connections, or out of fear of being labeled trouble-makers/whiners and thus running the risk of being discredited. All the while, non-filmmaker industry colleagues and stakeholders have much to loose if they ruffle feathers. Why put business relationships and friendships at risk? Why should anyone stick her/his head out of the foxhole if it is going to get shot? In an effort to begin the process of gaining support for an analysis of our field that would yield data for the basis of discussion, I am working on putting together a task force—The Indie Doc Sustainability Task Force. We can talk more tomorrow but this issue runs deep and wide.
...a Rae article that, “moviemakers are in the movie business, not the social change business”. Although they talk about film specifically, any medium of entertainment could still apply to this statement. This cycle of production is unhealthy, but if the process works, why fix it?
It may seem hard to believe that Americans would allow such an undemocratic practice in this nation. Fortunately, today filmmakers are allowed to make movies about the subject of their choice without being evaluated for treason. However, the memory of this dark time will live forever. The sound of it echoes through the bowels of a courtroom and reverberates in the hearts of the American people. In the words of former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, the only judge who decides whether the film industry is “good” or “bad” is the “man or woman who attends the movies”. It is the duty of an individual to evaluate a film and interpret art. The verdict is not reached in a courtroom; it is decided when ending credits appear on the screen.
In Hollywood today, most films can be categorized according to the genre system. There are action films, horror flicks, Westerns, comedies and the likes. On a broader scope, films are often separated into two categories: Hollywood films, and independent or foreign ‘art house’ films. Yet, this outlook, albeit superficial, was how many viewed films. Celebrity-packed blockbusters filled with action and drama, with the use of seamless top-of-the-line digital editing and special effects were considered ‘Hollywood films’. Films where unconventional themes like existentialism or paranoia, often with excessive violence or sex or a combination of both, with obvious attempts to displace its audiences from the film were often attributed with the generic label of ‘foreign’ or ‘art house’ cinema.
... ed (BFI, 1990) we read … “contrary to all trendy journalism about the ‘New Hollywood’ and the imagined rise of artistic freedom in American films, the ‘New Hollywood’ remains as crass and commercial as the old…”
In Hollywood political conflict was also paving the way for what would later occur in Hollywood as the HUAC would attack the industry. Big business controlled the lucrative industry and the companies that controlled the market were eight major studios in Hollywood. The Metro-Goldw...
Describe some ways in which business values and artistic values in Hollywood contend with one another.
...s have been regaining ownership of theaters due to the reluctance of anyone filing suit against them, “new Hollywood it is just like the old days before divestiture only better” (Lewis, 2008, p. 406). In conclusion, the giant head of the studio system monster was cut off only for a bigger more powerful one of the new Hollywood to have grown back in its place. Ultimately, Hollywood studios remain more interested about making money, than making better films and “The independent producer does what a movie producer has always done: choose the right stories, directors and actors to produce quality films” (Lewis, 2008, p. 502).
and the film trade itself. Fanned to a pitch of semi-hysterical anticipation by the press, the
Rhythm and Hues was a well-known visual effects studio, has been around since 1987. This studio did the special effects for movies such as The Golden Compass, and more recently for the award-winning Life of Pi, which won an Oscar for it’s visual effects. This studio has had much success, but despite this the studio was forced to file bankruptcy only a couple of weeks prior to winning an Oscar. This signifies a red flag for the VFX industry as a whole. If a successful studio is able to fall under so easily, what will happen to the smaller, less successful studios? How is this affecting those working in the VFX industry? The VFX industry is struggling because of their poor business model which had led to heartache for studios and visual effects artists everywhere. In my analysis of the VFX industry, I have discovered that the financial difficulties of the studios have negatively affected worker’s lives and the lives of their families because of the unstable nature of the business.
In the present day, Americans have had to realize what the word “freedom” means. Whether it is recognizing our freedom as American citizens and defending ourselves against a growing threat of terrorism, or protesting war as we attempt to protect another country’s plea for freedom, all Americans have looked closer at the definition of freedom. In this heightened age of freedom and evaluating our constitutional rights, it is interesting that censorship is still a controversial issue. Perhaps the most significant examples of censorship take place in the arts. While the First Amendment considers censorship illegal, there are many ways that censorship still occurs in visual art, theatre, television, and film. Perhaps film has the most organized system of censorship found in the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Chris Roth writes in his article “Three Decades of Film Censorship…right before your eyes”, that censorship by ratings is a serious First Amendment issue that deserves debate and action. The article poses many questions about the MPAA and the restrictions it places on director’s creativity. However, the most important issue it addresses is our freedom as American citizens to promote, protect, and view a diverse mosaic of ideas on screen.
to put a film out. The money that it takes to cover the cost to make a film, not only comes from
The importance of ethics when making a film is paramount. They exist in the filmmaking world to “govern the conduct [because] no hard and fast rules suffice, (Nichols, 2001). As Bill Nichols has argued, the essential question to consider when making a documentary is “How Should We Treat the People We Film (Nichols, 2001)?” The welfare of the people who participate in the film is vital to recognise because they are “cultural players rather than theatrical performers, (Nichols, 2001)”, they are conveying is real life according to them. Each of their movements and words are not scripted, and are real. A filmmaker is documenting their actual lives because they believe that the value lies in presenting something of interest to themselves and to its audience. It is because of this reality that the issue is much more important because it “adds a level of ethical consideration to documentary that is much less prominent in fiction filmmaking, (Nichols, 2001).” People are portraying their real selves and are not masked by a personality that has been asked of them to depict by a director. What must also be considered is how attending to the ethics of filmmaking is the benefits that it holds for the filmmakers and the audience. “Ethica...
Film was meant to show the traditions and customs of specific cultures to the rest of the world. However, because of Hollywood's need for a large market to sell a movie ...
The film industry has always been somewhat of a dichotomy. Grounded firmly in both the worlds of art and business the balance of artistic expression and commercialization has been an issue throughout the history of filmmaking. The distinction of these two differing goals and the fact that neither has truly won out over the other in the span of the industry's existence, demonstrates a lot of information about the nature of capitalism.
Maria G Mackavey. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge. Hollywood: Sep 2006. Vol 9 iss; pg244 6pgs