FilmCouch

FilmCouch #55 - Sundance hangover

An unforeseen hangover from the Sundance Film Festival, like the freezing and thawing of the earth, slowly drags up thoughts and pondering on the state of movies in America. The conclusion looks much like the political landscape: Two parties, sharply divided, moving further apart. Talking to Baghead director, Jay Duplass, and Zeroville author, Steve Erickson.

FilmCouch 55

UPDATE: A correction: On the podcast, Paul says that ZEROVILLE was written by Steven Erickson, film critic for the LA Times. It was actually written by Steve Erickson, who is the film critic for LOS ANGELES Magazine.
 

Re:FilmCouch #55 - Sundance hangover

I've been mulling over your discussion of the state of Hollywood, and particularly the writers' strike, for a few days now and am still left with the thought that the conversation assigned too much of the burden for what's wrong with film studio executives, especially their aversion to risk, to unions.

Whether it's Hollywood studios or Detroit automakers, I'm not persuaded that fulfilling union contracts plays any significant role in stifling innovation. The existence of unions is simply a sign/symptom of how filmmaking is, as it almost always has been, torn between commerce and art. The motivation of studio executives has always been to make money. Arguably, there have been times and are circumstances when "non-commercial" films will get funded as prestige projects, or because of some idiosyncracy on the part of an executive, but, ultimately, like any corporate entity, movie studios exist to make money. That is why you won't see Joe Swanberg or the Duplass brothers being given $100,000 to go make a movie of their choosing. The stakes are too small and the return too uncertain. Yes, union contracts mean that $100,000 isn't enought to make a movie in Hollywood, but getting rid of unions won't unleash a tide of creativity; you'll get the same kinds of films you get now, only with even bigger profit margins for studio owners, and greater exploitation of writers, actors, directors, etc.

The desire to create is a powerful one. It's easy for an aspiring filmmaker to say that they'd work for free to get their movie made, and studios would be more than happy to take advantage of that. The unions make sure that doesn't happen. They also make sure that people can still make it as writers, actors, and directors when times are lean.

Most filmmakers, whether they work in front of or behind the camera, who have both financial and artistic aspirations do what the Duplass bros are trying to do, which is to work projects both inside and outside of the system. You can also choose to stay outside of the system altogether. The downside of that choice is that you have fewer resources and a harder time reaching a wider audience. If you can live with that, and can find your audience on your own, you can avoid all corporate entanglements, including unions. But if you want a name actor, or a professional photographer, etc., you're going to have to engage with the system. Unions are a part of that, but they aren't ultimately the owners or the real rule makers within the system. The studio owners are.