From: db (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 17:56:57 PST
On Mar 21, 2004, at 4:50 PM, James Kreul wrote:
> And even when there are local
> reviewers, their coverage is often indistinguishable from syndicated
> reviews--because that's what the readers are interested in.
I've heard this argument (that's what the readers are interested in) so
many times it has absolutely no value to me. First of all, how do they
know what their reader wants or, for that matter, who their audience
is. It's not much more than a shell game--are they under this cup?
After all, until "underground" and "independent" films became
"legitimate" because of box office grosses or notorious reputation or
studio recognition or some similarly shallow acknowledgment--all of
which were the result of audience recognition pre-critic (barring the
few exceptional critics willing to see outside of the limited scope of
Hollywood production) and the critic or news source trying to catch up
or hitch their wagon to that new horse--none of the "reputable" sources
would cover such films, nor would theaters carry them.
As an aside, I find a great number of the films of the late 60s and
early 70s far more independent in spirit than the majority of the
current crop. And major stars were appearing in those films, too--that
was no unique development of the 80s and 90s as most reviewers would
have it. It is a completely ahistorical and negligent representation
of the concept of "independent" filmmaking.
Which brings me to film threat and why I stopped reading it. Though I
was excited when I first started reading it, I soon began to feel it
just became a wank fest of a different sort; they were just as biased,
just as close-minded and, essentially, just as fascistic as any of the
sources of information they railed against.
When I'm being cynical, I think the real goal of many reviewers is to
replace Leonard Maltin when he retires from ET, or to be able to move
up the food chain to a "real" paying gig at a similarly "respectable"
publication. Culture Vultures. Makes me want to quote Breton's
thoughts on the word culture...
Well, that's my rant for the day!
> However, I do think more experimental filmmakers should think about
> what is
> needed for programmers to get good local coverage. As much as I'd like
> more adventurous arts writing locally, I also understand that I need to
> make it possible for reviewers to see the work, and that means either
> getting the print well in advance or getting video screeners when
> available. If filmmakers do not provide these materials (along with a
> good
> publicity still), they simply won't get coverage.
But this is a very good point. Even if most reviewers would ignore the
info anyway.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
db