From: Captain P.J. (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2006 - 10:19:53 PDT
-snip-
I echo this sentiment. While I don't exactly blindly trust this call for entries, I also feel that just because "Hollywood" is in the post doesn't automatically make it evil. I don't think it qualifies as spam any more than any other employment opportunity notice, call for entries notice (and I've seen a few for "faceless" programs), or advertisement of someone's exhibition or performance. Heck, for all I know, some big, evil corporate executive is lurking on the DVD traders list that I signed up for through FrameWorks and here I am, naively printing away, preparing to send a free copy of my (finally finished) DVD to them!
It's kinduva a nice change from the norm of "creative" corporate business strategy, anyway. A couple of comedy writing friends of mine were floored when some executive came up to them in a NY coffee shop and said, proudly, "Pay attention to [popular television show]. You guys are so clever! Your conversation might just end up in an episode!" He then winked and walked out the door smiling, as if this was a treat to the starving writers. And one person already mentioned Dorsky, whose work was "appropriated" without his even knowing it (no money, no credit)! For myself, if anyone wanted to steal my ideas, all they'd have to do is go to my web site and watch clips of my films there or show up at a film festival where my work is screening- though I challenge them to figure out what the hell they are looking at ;-) At least these people are giving a person notice and the choice to "sell out" if that's what they want. I know a few "big" (and proud) experimental filmmakers w!
ho have expressed a desire- and even an intention- to collaborate on a Hollywood project. I think it always depends on the specifics of the project, not just its location.
On the flip side, I signed off on a document saying that my silent films could be screened with live music in a program at an experimental-friendly venue, trusting the venue and their choices. Before I knew it, one of my favorite SOUND films had been programed! I protested a couple of times, but the program had been set and everyone was stressed out, so I swallowed my pride and let it drop. They advertise on FrameWorks all the time. Did I get paid? Hell no! I paid THEM! Did they get paid? Well, in addition to my submission fee, you had to buy a ticket to get in, so I guess they did...
Still, I like working in the bee hive that is film. I guess I'm bound to be stung a few times. I think in ANY context, an artist should be wary "agreeing" to anything- Hollywood or not. It does make me sad to think that a soundtrack that I worked very hard on (it's an intentional and key part of the film) was turned off by people who were supposed to care and replaced, and, worse, that I had somehow OKed it!
~Courtney
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:35 , Courtney email suppressed> sent:
>
>
>Philip Hood email suppressed> wrote: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:34:45 -0400
>From: Philip Hood email suppressed>
>Subject: Re: CVM CALL FOR WORK: Cadavre Exquis
>To: email suppressed
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Montgomery, Jennifer R. wrote:
>
>> ... while in some ways this call could
>> be read as a step in the right direction, because it proposes to buy our
>> films, in another way it is more invidious: take the whole thing and use
>> it any which way money can buy. the films' authenticity is not guaranteed
>> just because the material is original. context is everything. ...
>> ... -jennifer m.
>
> jennifer & others,
>
> I really do appreciate what you're saying
> here, but for some reason, am I wrong in
> sensing that I'm feeling a little bit
> of a
> reactionary vibe _against_ the
> "major big & faceless hollywood" machine ?
> moreso than the fear of loss of meaning
> through the mash-up process, which I
> liken a bit more to an exquisite corpse,
> or, "cadavre exquis" so to speak.
>
> Now, I just wonder what's really the
> issue here ? I suspect that its okay,
> to have whatever feeling, but I feel that
> had cindy sent out the request for a
> project of the same shaping that CVM
> was working on personally, or if anyone
> of "significance" that we know
> and trust from this collective were
> working on the similiar project, that
> its possible that there wouldn't have
> been the same "reaction" ...
>
> while I don't know cindy, personally
> or historically, there's something
> about her that I instinctively trust.
> Instinctually, I hate "the man" as much
> as I think anyone with their senses
> and faculties should healthfully allow.
> At
> the same time, I do believe in a
> form of universality and if, for instance,
> the only hold back is that this work
> would potentially work its way into
> a project at hollywood scale, I can't
> see why thats so different, at a
> fundamental core, than say, doing
> something that would work its way
> into anthology, or the tank, or
> someothersuch (each of which someone
> on this list at some time or other
> has had some "issues" with).
>
> Maybe its the loss of control ?
> A feeling that hollywood has been
> "whoring out" the experimental community
> long enough ... maybe
> there are some other issues here that
> I'm misunderstanding or have not
> been expressed ?
>
>-ml
>pth
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>
>
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.