Long post at Amir's blog re: two main items - films he's made in the past few years & inadequacies in what kind of indie films have received attention from some (or many perhaps) indie film festivals & media. Here's a quote from material about his films:
" So, in anticipation to the release of my new feature film “whale” i will be releasing a good portion of my body of work on the web, to reuse the phrase, in full view. I will be working backwards, from newest to oldest, one a week (or in small groups), starting later this afternoon.
Of course, some films are already available, so you can go and check them out on here. I will provide a brief history lesson, so that a context is built around the film.
With the climate of the Indie scene, and especially in light of the last few years in the micro-budget world, many artist who have been working under the radar, both on purpose, and out of misfortunes are losing there own past. So, as individual artist and writers, we need to create a history of sorts so that the good work of many do not slip into obscurity, a great possibility."
And later, about an indie filmmaking & media coverage trend (yes, it's about Mumblecore :):
" Groups and movements in arts go hand in hand, but surely, we are not going to argue that Dogme 95 has any similarities to any recent movement in American Film-making. And the French New Wave, lets take a deep breath, check our egos and move forward. And although not a group, there has been no grosser injustice then the comparison of these types of films to John Cassavettes work. I can continue to write on that subject, but that might validate something that does not exist at all. I question some of the journalist who make these comparisons, and ask if they are being objective, and or realistic?
There is no comparison to revolutions in cinema to what is happening now, in which case only a few hundred people have converted, and this is a reiteration of my point, that these films are not meant for this type of hype, nor are they ready for the types of intellectual critiques hurled there way. The real revolution was the technology and the filmmakers using them, a much larger context with much broader ramifications.
Some of the work coming from the so-called movement is a type of regurgitated cinema, in which case no progression exists, and when it does, only in the slightest increments (a fact that can be attributed by the quickness in which you can make films with no scripts and cheap prosumer equipment), which in fact, conjure up a sort of sketch work, juvenilia that is valid for what it is (it is still my belief that micro cinema has never fully reached its possibility in fiction, though there have been good films). These films have largely been niche work for an audience, largely like the filmmakers themselves. Again, a good thing, but in reciprocal and equal measures."
A lot more at this post.
- Sujewa
" So, in anticipation to the release of my new feature film “whale” i will be releasing a good portion of my body of work on the web, to reuse the phrase, in full view. I will be working backwards, from newest to oldest, one a week (or in small groups), starting later this afternoon.
Of course, some films are already available, so you can go and check them out on here. I will provide a brief history lesson, so that a context is built around the film.
With the climate of the Indie scene, and especially in light of the last few years in the micro-budget world, many artist who have been working under the radar, both on purpose, and out of misfortunes are losing there own past. So, as individual artist and writers, we need to create a history of sorts so that the good work of many do not slip into obscurity, a great possibility."
And later, about an indie filmmaking & media coverage trend (yes, it's about Mumblecore :):
" Groups and movements in arts go hand in hand, but surely, we are not going to argue that Dogme 95 has any similarities to any recent movement in American Film-making. And the French New Wave, lets take a deep breath, check our egos and move forward. And although not a group, there has been no grosser injustice then the comparison of these types of films to John Cassavettes work. I can continue to write on that subject, but that might validate something that does not exist at all. I question some of the journalist who make these comparisons, and ask if they are being objective, and or realistic?
There is no comparison to revolutions in cinema to what is happening now, in which case only a few hundred people have converted, and this is a reiteration of my point, that these films are not meant for this type of hype, nor are they ready for the types of intellectual critiques hurled there way. The real revolution was the technology and the filmmakers using them, a much larger context with much broader ramifications.
Some of the work coming from the so-called movement is a type of regurgitated cinema, in which case no progression exists, and when it does, only in the slightest increments (a fact that can be attributed by the quickness in which you can make films with no scripts and cheap prosumer equipment), which in fact, conjure up a sort of sketch work, juvenilia that is valid for what it is (it is still my belief that micro cinema has never fully reached its possibility in fiction, though there have been good films). These films have largely been niche work for an audience, largely like the filmmakers themselves. Again, a good thing, but in reciprocal and equal measures."
A lot more at this post.
- Sujewa
