2009, fading

Posted on 23 December 2009

Holidays. Holidays. Holidays. So much to talk (and write) about but this traffic keeps getting in the way. And finishing off gifts…

The cruel year of 2009: the joke of Health Care; Gitmo open for another year; Wall street flying from the chandeliers. Oh, how the rich got richer this year with their butler, Obama.

Then there’s the fact that Avatar cost $300,000,000 to make (not Obama’s fault in any way).

That would have been 60 small movies. 60 directors, 60 writers. 60, 1st Assistant Directors. So many grips. People getting jobs. 60 (potential) visions about human beings because you can’t really do much action stuff on that budget (and pay people decently). And that would have been 5 million dollar movies. Yes, decent pay for everyone. Living wages.

But wait…

The studios are now putting together deals to make movies for $100,000 because of the new technology. In that case, of course, it would be union busting. The only directors etc would be rich kids (who else can afford to live completely for free?) But none-the-less you’ve got to throw that into the equation of 2009. How many movies would that have been?

Three thousand. Ah, life…

Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Print
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz

8 responses to 2009, fading

  • PB says:

    What did you think of Avatar, as a film?

    Personally, I think that there is definitely room in the theatres for a grandscale movie that entertains and transports the viewer out of themselves and I thought Avatar did that on such an extraordinary scale. I’d be more inclined to watch 60 small movies about human beings without any action if they could be mixed up with a spectacular movie like Avatar every so often. Who are films made for? Audiences or filmmakers?

    When I saw Avatar, the theatre was more crowded than I have ever seen it. It was great to see. Give people a good experience, take their minds off these other problems and they’ll be back.

    • stephen says:

      I liked the film up to a point. A few days have passed and except for the vague power of it, little has remained for me. What was it’s point in the end? That technology is bad, that nature is good? And yet it used nothing but technology to make that message and in doing so, its cost sucked up money for any other films. It also sucked up all the screens.

      This is by no means the first (nor will it be the last) to do this. Sad, though. Because (as with so much else) there is very little out there about what we little humans go through every day.

      Hopefully this little website can do that a little. And maybe the movies I’m starting (again) to try to make, though it is a hostile world out there right now to anything but the likes of Avatar.

      • Incognita says:

        Thanks for posting Maria Bustillos’s review. You talk of liking the film about to a point and its vague power. Can you elaborate on what was actually likeable?

        “What was it’s point in the end? That technology is bad, that nature is good? And yet it used nothing but technology to make that message.” Not sure such movies have a message as their purpose; they’re just pointless spectacle to produce momentary excitement and fill the coffers. The so called pro-nature theme seems especially laughable considering the waste and environmental harm in actually producing the film. But then that’s how each of these blockbusters with a “mission” is created. And what’s wrong with technology? The problem is with us who misuse it or let it enslave us.

        I haven’t seen Avatar but interestingly your negative reaction as well as the review makes me curious. I just might take the three and a half minute walk to the neighborhood multiplex and actually watch it, 3D and all. Or might not. Especially as I don’t subscribe to this very restricted definition of what is entertaining. A much greater challenge is to make a film that has a true-to-life message, doesn’t have a huge budget and actually entertains(yes it is possible) while it does something more. And even the few of that kind that get to be made, don’t find their way to theaters where I am, for the very reason that the many avatars of Avatar block all the screens.

        Talking of the word “avatar,” here is a review and a range of viewpoints from commentors around the use of the word. One Hindu certainly doesn’t believe like another!

        http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/6777326.html

    • Stephen Gyllenhaal says:

      Here’s an interesting response to Avatar by Maria Bustillos:

      So: Avatar. Here is a story with an alleged anti-corporatist message, underwritten by a huge corporation to the tune of $250 million plus. It preaches closeness with (outer-space) nature, but must have produced CO2 emissions at the rate of a dozen oil refineries. It alleges respect for women, who are shown to be uniformly, pornographically subservient to the alpha males. Its message is anti-violence, but it’s also stuffed to the gills with the glorious super-lethal war machines from which toys and video games can and will be fashioned.

      The whole of the planet Earth cringed when James Cameron shouted, “I’m the king of the world!” at the Oscars that one time. But did we learn our lesson? No, we did not. We gave this clown a quarter of a billion dollars to make an even more terrible movie. I am sorry Mary HK Choi et al, but I feel that you misled me gravely. What James Cameron knows about being a fanboy could be stuffed in a watch and rattled. He is entirely bereft of the crucial ingredient of fanboyness: humility.

      I don’t say that Avatar is not beautiful to look at; it is. I saw it at a 3D IMAX theater and found the images dazzling, if Disneyfied. However, there is not enough beauty in the world to wallpaper over this writer-director’s crude outlook. He is bully and a boor, graceless, swaggering, self-congratulatory, puerile. He has got the emotional nuance and literary sensitivity of spackle.

      The worst thing about this movie is the pretend-not-glorifying of violence. Its lush, slow pleasures are taken in the final gasping breath of a fantastical beast, in long, loving strokes of the camera over scenes of annihilation, over explosions, and people impaled on poisoned arrows, over blue bodies exploding out of helicopters or off of psychedelic space-pterodactyls. These brutalities are expiated with a line or two of portentous Native Hokum every now and then.

      The impression of complete hypocrisy was in no way lessened by the glossy war-porn recruitment commercial for the National Guard, produced in exactly the same style and character, that played before the movie (though with no aliens, I guess, and not, thankfully, in 3D).

      But no, the really worst thing is the ham-fistedness of Avatar’s alternate history. Okay, so this time the Native Americans are able to throw off the European oppressor. Note well, however, that l’homme sauvage, for all the purity of his Native Wisdom, is still quite helpless without a white man to show him what the hell to do. So what if this “hero” “goes native,” just like in Dances With Wolves? (Even as he goes about gathering “the horse people of the plains” to assist him.) It still takes a white man to tame the really BIG dragon, and to outfox the enemy.

      He will also take the “best” woman, the noblest, the highest born, the smartest, whose token resistance will dwindle its sorry way from faux-contempt to near-drooling adoration in a matter of days. Her former man will die, and her father will, too; her whole civilization will lie in ruins. She will pretty much get down on her knees to thank this white man, anyway (see Klaus Theweleit’s Male Fantasies for a gruesome but believable explanation of the underpinnings of that whole business).

      Notice how nobody—not the Marines, not the brilliant scientist, not the wise blue natives—can make a single successful move without this white guy. They are all completely powerless and vulnerable until he comes along with his fake self-deprecation and his blunt, forceful manner and his great big muscles. Pathetic.

  • Herman G says:

    There is much talk about how the rising number of users of the net, especially facebook, brings us together. It is less talk about how the fragmentalisation of the cultures into minicultures along with the higher individualisation give us less common denominators. We may speak the same languages but the words are getting different meanings to different persons.

    That means that there will be less understanding of other peoples way of living, doesn’t it? This will also mean that the induvidual film maker will get higher obstacles to reach out with his or her messages.

    Isn’t it like in the old days, before the advance of different communications as trains, interstate roads,post- and telecommunications. In those times in my country, Sweden, the State church was the only frequent contact with the outer world. Isolation was common.

    Now it is the opposite; we have to many sources of information, so we close our ears and eyes to all of the far away news, and concentrate only on what next to yourself.

    Is this a too fargoing analysis?

    H.

  • Herman G says:

    By The Way:

    MERRY CHRISTMAS!

    or as my father often told me:

    “You must not be too shure of yourself; things might get OK!”

    Herman

  • shewerewolf says:

    I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
    And you et an account on Twitter?

  • Leave a Response