This may be a tangent, but I've been thinking a lot lately that film is fundamentally more conservative than music or literature because it costs so much to make. Films that matter as art are increasingly marginal, but a low budget by the film world's standards could allow someone to spend several months in a recording studio and pay for session musicians and professional mixers. (Even the $15,000 budget for SKINAMARINK is more than most people have to throw around on a project that will probably lose money.) A few years ago, Kent Jones wrote that film was becoming a niche akin to poetry or ballet, but poets can work by just sitting down with a pen and notebook.
I do think that the money thing prevents a lot of good work from getting made in the first place, or (if it's made) finding larger audiences. Worthwhile things can happen on much smaller budgets, too, but the audience and distribution and legitimacy aren't always there. Maybe that's not always a bad thing, though--we can question the assumption that has presumed always that, because film is a "mass" and "popular" art, its final end should always be to have a global audience and immediate accessibility. What if it is isn't/doesn't? ... Or anyway, I think that having more people who have spent a few years driving a bus or a few decades plumbing, but who eventually end up in filmmaking, would be an improvement on the way things are now.
I find Conner O'Malley one of the most interesting directors in the post-cinema space. He worked as a garbage collector and dog walker for several years (although as far as I know, his plan was always to become a comedian).
He has YouTube and Vimeo channels and recently started a website to rent a new series of films directly. I'd particularly recommend his short HUDSON YARDS VIDEO GAME, which is on his Vimeo page.
This may be a tangent, but I've been thinking a lot lately that film is fundamentally more conservative than music or literature because it costs so much to make. Films that matter as art are increasingly marginal, but a low budget by the film world's standards could allow someone to spend several months in a recording studio and pay for session musicians and professional mixers. (Even the $15,000 budget for SKINAMARINK is more than most people have to throw around on a project that will probably lose money.) A few years ago, Kent Jones wrote that film was becoming a niche akin to poetry or ballet, but poets can work by just sitting down with a pen and notebook.
I do think that the money thing prevents a lot of good work from getting made in the first place, or (if it's made) finding larger audiences. Worthwhile things can happen on much smaller budgets, too, but the audience and distribution and legitimacy aren't always there. Maybe that's not always a bad thing, though--we can question the assumption that has presumed always that, because film is a "mass" and "popular" art, its final end should always be to have a global audience and immediate accessibility. What if it is isn't/doesn't? ... Or anyway, I think that having more people who have spent a few years driving a bus or a few decades plumbing, but who eventually end up in filmmaking, would be an improvement on the way things are now.
I find Conner O'Malley one of the most interesting directors in the post-cinema space. He worked as a garbage collector and dog walker for several years (although as far as I know, his plan was always to become a comedian).
I don't think I know Conner O'Malley's stuff well so I'll have to seek a bit more of it out.
He has YouTube and Vimeo channels and recently started a website to rent a new series of films directly. I'd particularly recommend his short HUDSON YARDS VIDEO GAME, which is on his Vimeo page.