How do indies get +$200K funding?

[Shawn Nelson]

I agree with Tom here. What we need is a return to the old patronage system, where the wealthy and institutions (religious and secular) would fund artists to maturation and/or commissioning of pieces to support them, but all for filmmaking.

EDIT: Or maybe not, I could go both ways on this. Without the structural supports, only the strong (or well connected) survive. Would have had the art of the Renn without patronage? Not sure.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I agree with Tom here. What we need is a return to the old patronage system, where the wealthy and institutions (religious and secular) would fund artists to maturation and/or commissioning of pieces to support them, but all for filmmaking.

Right.

This is how Galileo, Michelangelo, and Di Vinci did their masterworks.

Now, all I need to do is figure out how to meet all these rich people banking art.

 

[jpp]

Who gets to decide what is worthy? A panel of government experts?

Would they have chosen Memento?

Here we go again. Government bureaucrats, except maybe in Britain(?), do not sit on arts funding panels. These panels usually consist of accomplished artists in their fields, and sometimes academics, on a rotating basis. Even the U.S. used to have a fairly decent record of awarding money to individual artists before the right-wing shut it down. This process is subject to abuse and absurdity, but what large expenditure of money isn't? The defense budget? Plenty of governments disperse arts funds, including film funding, with excellent results.

As for Michelangelo -- he WAS financed by the state, there being no real distinction between Church and government in those days. The same would inevitably be true of all the artists of that period. Even private patrons were the "State", as their wealth derived from what, today, we would consider public resources and was the result of state-conferred nobility.

Finally, there's no need for the government to finance Memento. The private market works just fine for that kind of material.

Come on guys, put the ideology aside....

 

[Tom Lowe]

Well if the private market works for Memento, then what's the problem? That's the way it's supposed to work.

Trying to become a top director is a one-in-a-million dream.

jpp, I do agree with you that local governments should fund local projects. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it's great.

 

[jpp]

Well if the private market works for Memento, then what's the problem? That's the way it's supposed to work.

Trying to become a top director is a one-in-a-million dream.

The problem is that not everyone wants to make a crime thriller in reverse, or movies likely to gross a lot of money, and with obvious popular appeal.

We're talking about sustaining the arts, when the marketplace fails to do so. If the be-all and end-all is Memento and Batman, then you're fine. But I think we both agree, there's more to life and art than Memento and Batman(?)

This is not revolutionary idea -- except in the U.S. Here, I guess only bankers, oil companies and mega-corporations are entitled to government resources. Don't get me started....

 

[Tom Lowe]

What about Terrence Malick?

Somehow, he continues to get huge budgets green-lighted, despite the fact that he is creating nothing but esoteric cinematic art of the highest order? His movies always lose money. How do you explain the fact that Malick exists in the current system?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

What about Terrence Malick?

Somehow, he continues to get huge budgets green-lighted, despite the fact that he is creating nothing but esoteric cinematic art of the highest order? His movies always lose money. How do you explain the fact that Malick exists in the current system?

voodoo

:hippie:

 

[jpp]

What about Terrence Malick?

Somehow, he continues to get huge budgets green-lighted, despite the fact that he is creating nothing but esoteric cinematic art of the highest order? His movies always lose money. How do you explain the fact that Malick exists in the current system?

There *is* no accounting for it, other than it happens. The system, for all its commercial imperatives, isn't monolithic. OTOH, Malick got Badlands made, and a reputation established, during a fertile and venturesome period in the business when corporate control loosened. These conditions no longer exist. Whether he'd emerge today is an open question.

I guess I should also say, I don't share your full enthusiasm for his work, so it's less miraculous to me than it might be to someone else.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

TM is a bad ass filmmaker.

if its that easy just do it baby and i will say that you are a bad ass filmmaker

 

[Tom Lowe]

I guess I should also say, I don't share your full enthusiasm for his work, so it's less miraculous to me than it might be to someone else.

:yikes::mad5::gun:

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Here we go again. Government bureaucrats, except maybe in Britain(?), do not sit on arts funding panels. These panels usually consist of accomplished artists in their fields, and sometimes academics, on a rotating basis. Even the U.S. used to have a fairly decent record of awarding money to individual artists before the right-wing shut it down. This process is subject to abuse and absurdity, but what large expenditure of money isn't? The defense budget? Plenty of governments disperse arts funds, including film funding, with excellent results.

If you look at German or Swiss cinema or tv productions you probably wouldn't say this. Yes it happens sometimes, but not often. The producers seem to make a nice living of finishing films for the sake of it instead, because there is simply no quality measurement for something like film. I assume the average film produced here isn't any better or worse than what's coming from the USA.

The problem is that not everyone wants to make a crime thriller in reverse, or movies likely to gross a lot of money, and with obvious popular appeal.

You could argue it's the wrong medium then. I'm not talking about paltry sums. But some cost/relation is okay I think. I'm with you that lawyers, bankers and management consultants freeload on society on a much larger scale without any contribution at all. No discussion about that. Art doesn't pay in this world. Sad but true.

 

[Danish P.V.]

If you look at German or Swiss cinema or tv productions you probably wouldn't say this.

This is what I was thinking all the time. German movies suck so much, I never saw a single one in the theatre except a cartoon, that was in the mid 80ies, I also avoid 99,9% of German movies in TV. This is not an issue only with "commercially made" (ROFL) productions here, but even almost all indie movies that endlessly circle around niche topics that most people don`t have any interest in.

 

[jpp]

I don't know current German or Swiss cinema well enough to comment, only that nothing has emerged since the 1970s that's attracted much attention in the U.S.. The Museum of Modern Art does run an annual German art house series but I gave up on it a couple years ago. The films were uniformly bad, and not in an interesting way.

Still, I think we need to argue from results, backwards. Virtually all esteemed art-house filmmakers working today get some form of public subsidy. Maybe we can say that public funding doesn't guarantee quality or innovation, but lack of it pretty much does guarantee lack of quality and innovation, at least in a highly corporate industry, and in a medium as expensive as film.

The result may have a lot with the prevailing culture, and the state of ferment in the country. To my eye and ear, Asian films are the most interesting now, probably because of the upheavals going on in that the part of the world. By contrast, Canada is another country with very generous subsidies (compared to the U.S.), but it can't seem to come up with much, though you do get films worth seeing which would never get financed at adequate levels in the U.S.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

This is what I was thinking all the time. German movies suck so much, I never saw a single one in the theatre except a cartoon, that was in the mid 80ies, I also avoid 99,9% of German movies in TV. This is not an issue only with "commercially made" (ROFL) productions here, but even almost all indie movies that endlessly circle around niche topics that most people don`t have any interest in.

There are some good ones I have to say. Run Lola Run, Sophie Scholl (the last one), some films of director Faith Akin, some of Wenders, Fassbinder.

But yes. Much of those subsidis go either to stupid german comedies or Stasi films, nothing I'd like to see. Original stuff is very rare.

Same here, stupid and embarrasing swiss comedies. Not much of public money though compared with germany.

I think it has to do a lot with the prevailing culture, and the state of ferment in the country. To my eye and ear, Asian films are the most interesting now, probably because of the upheavals going on in that the part of the world.

Word.

 

[Danish P.V.]

There are some good ones I have to say. Run Lola Run, Sophie Scholl (the last one), some films of director Faith Akin, some of Wenders, Fassbinder.

But yes. Much of those subsidis go either to stupid german comedies or Stasi films, nothing I'd like to see. Original stuff is very rare.

Same here, stupid and embarrasing swiss comedies. Not much of public money though compared with germany.

I liked a couple of Werner Herzog`s, Fassbinder`s and Andreas Dresen`s movies.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Herzog =

Fassbinder =