I'm not dismissing anything.  People should do whatever they want.

I'm merely saying if you want to do something that fits into a tightly-defined structure with the main purpose of making money, don't become a filmmaker—become an investment banker or business consultant or some other putrid profession.


Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jesus god, I just realized this note was sent to the wrong film list. I
think it would be an interesting question to pose to the philosiphy group
here but I would never intentionally question such a thing on this list.

Ignore it or run with it, just know it was intended to another list filled
with filmmakers rather than film philosophers.

One comment I will make here is that arists such as John Singer Sargent
didn't dismiss the portaiture art that allowed him to survive as an
artist, he found a way to do both the type of painting/illustration he was
driven to do as well as the type that gave him his career. He also
most certainly thought outside the box. Finding that balance is part of
being an artist - dismissing the need to make money or be marketable is a
dangerous and elitist path to take. That doesn't dismiss it's importance
on the path, as well, you can't dismiss those that want to move their film
careers out of their basement studio apartments with the intent of doing
it as a profession.

thanks,
Cole.


On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Because it's not only about money and/or marketability.
>
> People need to think outside of the box.  You wouldn't ask a painter why he doesn't make landscapes (which he can sell to hotel chains, to be put on the walls of hotel rooms) instead of abtracts, would you?
>
> Right now I'm making a one hour film (that's therefore neither short nor feature), and no-one can understand why I'm doing it.  I get asked various questions: 1) why don't I add twenty minutes and turn it into a feature? (if I thought it would make a good feature, wouldn't I then have already presented it as such?), 2) am I making a television pilot? (no).
>
> When I think about making a project, the only thing I consider is whether or not I'm excited about the project, and have some reason (whatever it may be) for wanting to make it.  I always assume that everything else will sort itself out.
>
>
> Film-Philosophy Salon  wrote:
> > This brings up an interesting dilema I've struggled with for quite a
> while and depending on who you talk to, the basis for reasoning differs.
> Of all the (struggling) filmmakers on this list - and isn't that
> everyone(?) - why continue to make shorts rather than a feature?
> I know that 5 years ago, the thinking used to be there was a market for
> features only, but now there is a strong, albeit somewhat limited, demand
> for shorts.
> So,
> Why are you making either features or shorts?
> What are your distribution plans?
> Anything else to add, I would like to hear it as well.
>
> Cole.
>