|
Post by Librarian on Apr 23, 2004 15:08:20 GMT -5
I thought I'd start the thread on the book we are reading. What do you guys think so far? I thought it was interesting to read about how Sundance and the Weinsteins got started. I have never thought of the movies I was into in the eighties as a period of time in film history. This was an interesting perspective to me. I remember catching every Jarmusch, Lynch, Coen Bros, and Waters film that came out. We were so excited about John Lurie, Nick Cave and Tom Waits being in films. And generally excited about the interesting films these guys were making. I never thought of these films as a grouping. One thing that I find a bit frustrating about this author is that he regards commercial films as evil. I just don't agree that Speilberg and Tom Hanks are all that bad. I may not watch some commercial films, but I don't regard them as something evil. But then again I don't think making money is a bad thing. I'm funny that way. I don't see studio films or commercial films as a compromise for an actor, writer or director. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that there is an audience for these films. And a paying member of an audience gets what they pay for. If that's what they want... Someone keeps buying tickets to the latest Rock film. And now that there have been a few sleeper hits from the indie side of film making, I don't think that commercial films keep independent films from being made. In fact having the commercial films around gives us a basis for comparison. Anyway I'm rambling. Do any of you agree disagree? Next week lets discuss the 2nd and 3rd chapters.
|
|
|
Post by hurltomato on Apr 23, 2004 20:47:29 GMT -5
I have enjoyed the book and it was an excellent choice considering the interests of our group. Thanks Librarian for the suggestion... The dramatic films of any given generation seem to focus on the attitude of the times. Society attitudes swing like a pendulum from cerebral reality and back to focus on pure feeling and satiation of the senses. If the end of WWII brought us to the need for reality escape, the high drama of the 60/70's certainly brought us into reality as Biskin alludes. When the pendulum swung back, it brought the independent movie industry to life. Intense reality always seems to be followed by the need for fantasy and the surreal. Both have their place and both take their turn.... I agree with Lib that to call one bad or another good means very little.
I am a little stunned to read and acknowledge the underside of the rock... and the characters in the personality wars just simply amaze me.
|
|
MAC
Archer Avenue Resident
Posts: 330
|
Post by MAC on Apr 24, 2004 20:57:29 GMT -5
I have not always had such an interest in films and the film making process so this book will be an education for me. I think that Biskin is being a little hard on the film industry. It may be a dog eat dog world but than so is any other business were great deals of money are at stake. Are Robert Redford and the Weinsteins any different than any other corporate head?
As far as commercial films go, I usually like the so called "popcorn movies". I enjoyed Amergantan when I saw it in the theatres. So does that mean that I lack depth or intelligance? Indie or major studio - a good movie is a good movie regardless of which side of the house it is made.
From what I have read so far, Biskin seems to have such a jaded view of the indi business that I don't see how he could possible be objective in telling the story of how the industry has evolved into what it is today.
|
|
|
Post by hurltomato on Apr 26, 2004 10:04:41 GMT -5
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. It is the principal difference between a dog and a man" -Mark Twain
Found this quote to be particularily humorous and appropriate for indie film makers and their dog-eat-dog marketing compadres...Twain could have added in this vein, "if a man picks up a starving dog, makes him prosperous and earns his trust, why would he have any desire to beat it later for any reason?" HurlT
|
|
MAC
Archer Avenue Resident
Posts: 330
|
Post by MAC on Apr 26, 2004 14:30:02 GMT -5
I don't think they want to beat the dog. I think they just want control its every move. As they say, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
|
|
|
Post by Librarian on Apr 29, 2004 19:07:20 GMT -5
OK -- I've made it through the next two chapters. I had a long flight between Atlanta and San Francisco to help me. This is dense material and the guy seems to introduce someone in every paragraph. Then he won't mention them again until the next chapter. It's a bit hard to keep up with -- don't 'ya think?
I had no idea that I had Miramax to thank for these great movies:
Cinema Paradiso Errol Morris' Thin Blue Line Sex, Lies, & videotape Secret Policeman's Other Ball And one of my favorite movies -- Double Life of Veronique
Cinema Paradiso, Double Life and Sex, Lies are in my top 30 films.
But how scary are they with editing the films and not doling out the money. I remember not too long ago seeing a "Director's Cut" of Cinema Paradiso. Now it make sense.
I loved the Tarantino hits Sundance story. The author saves face with the shrine for Indie films. He conveys that it was Sundance purists that have the holier than thou attitude regarding commericial cinema.
|
|
|
Post by hurltomato on May 6, 2004 10:46:27 GMT -5
Took me awhile to get around the third chapter- moving slower I guess...
The Weinsteins and Redford, to an extent, remind me of Medieval lords in the feudal sytem. All powerful and unpredictable. If they didn't like the the way a task was done- off with his ear. If they didn't like a remark- lop off his finger. It must have been very hard to work in a place where routine fear plays so much a part of your career future...
I remember when Daniel Day-Lewis was up for an Oscar for My Left Foot, an excellent Irish feature I might add, and the civil disabilities groups were upset that he portrayed a crippled man. I know now that it was the Weinsteins that turned that press around and ultimately helped promote DDL for his Oscar. The cap to the story was how they(Weinsteins) treated the Miramax rep who got them through the DDL door- You need to have a thick skin to take that kind of abuse--
|
|
|
Post by hurltomato on May 19, 2004 13:43:56 GMT -5
Even though I was tempted to put this under The Third Wheel, I am putting it here, because of the strong references to Biskin's book Down and Dirty and Miramax pictures. The review considers the movie rather a light wind, however even the reviewer Patrick Bromley wonders why Miramax held it's release for so long. Bromley seems to regard light comedies with some distain(including Stiller & Wilsons), but his views are interesting give and take. I appreciate the heads-up regarding the cost of the DVD and it's NOT having a commentary... Perhaps I will take his suggestion and wait for the movie to arrive at WalMart's bargain bin- if I can wait that long for two hours of undiluted Luke Wilson and his slow-grinnin, sardonic charm... I was delighted to read that Weinstein feel a little heated about Down and Dirty...Just finished Chapter Four and into Five. www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/thirdwheel.php
|
|
|
Post by Librarian on May 19, 2004 14:07:08 GMT -5
Ouch! That was a painful read.
|
|