Entertainment and bad architecture
Film-makers should entertain. Its definition of entertainment that is somewhat strechable. Die Hard 3 or Almodvar? Both are enjoyable, depending on mood, time of day, in-flight or out, killing time or being meaningful...
Its the snobbery that goes with 'art' that flies in the face of a medium that has evolved into a mass entertainer. Today, an Amores Perros does more to check the boxes than the Die Hard of ten years ago. Tastes changing, markets fragmenting, niche audiences developing - or a combination of all?
Spending three / two years making a film is a long time. And one's resolve is tested ofen during that time. First waiting for funding, during the writing, then the shoot and finally in post production and selling the film. Each time, someone asks a question (and you're supposed to have all the answers) - you think to yourself, is this worth the time? the money? the resources? the mobilizing of a 100 - 200 people.
I better be darned sure that it really is. That's why (for me) it should have some kind of social or other relevance or aspiration.
Meanwhile, on a totally unrelated subject, I despair about the state of our monuments, our heritage and the general apathy we seem to have towards things historic. Be an ancestral home in Kerela which is being sold piece meal to foreign collectors. Or tearing down haveli's in Shekhavati and replacing them with concrete boxes and corrugated iron roofs. Its the age of the rolling shutter where my girlfriend's name is immortalised on the walls of the red-fort.
What will future generations find when they excavate - plastic, concrete, bad sewage.
Ironically, all this as we charge into the global economy makes India such an interesting place to be as a film maker.
A salient nod to the state of heritage, or neglect. Backdrop or 'agenda' for a new film, perhaps.
Its the snobbery that goes with 'art' that flies in the face of a medium that has evolved into a mass entertainer. Today, an Amores Perros does more to check the boxes than the Die Hard of ten years ago. Tastes changing, markets fragmenting, niche audiences developing - or a combination of all?
Spending three / two years making a film is a long time. And one's resolve is tested ofen during that time. First waiting for funding, during the writing, then the shoot and finally in post production and selling the film. Each time, someone asks a question (and you're supposed to have all the answers) - you think to yourself, is this worth the time? the money? the resources? the mobilizing of a 100 - 200 people.
I better be darned sure that it really is. That's why (for me) it should have some kind of social or other relevance or aspiration.
Meanwhile, on a totally unrelated subject, I despair about the state of our monuments, our heritage and the general apathy we seem to have towards things historic. Be an ancestral home in Kerela which is being sold piece meal to foreign collectors. Or tearing down haveli's in Shekhavati and replacing them with concrete boxes and corrugated iron roofs. Its the age of the rolling shutter where my girlfriend's name is immortalised on the walls of the red-fort.
What will future generations find when they excavate - plastic, concrete, bad sewage.
Ironically, all this as we charge into the global economy makes India such an interesting place to be as a film maker.
A salient nod to the state of heritage, or neglect. Backdrop or 'agenda' for a new film, perhaps.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home