quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

I just read about this producer in the New York Times (NYT), and how he got into controversy over being a judge and making films that express political opinions.

?url? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/nyregion/31judge.html?ref=nyregion?/url?

Leaving aside the inflammatory issue, the NYT says that the producer makes low-budget movies. I googled his company and got to his website, where I note he has made about 8 films to date, not to mention several books.

?url? http://www.justiceforallproductions.com/about.php?/url?

I'm interested in professionals who have a day job and who can make films on the side. I did start a thread previously about indies being hobbyists, so I thought we could use this as a case study.

Does anyone have anything to say?

---

In my humble Progressive opinion, I think that the bigger issue presented here is that of Government "Incentives" to Corporations in order to attract film projects to states and nations.

Arguably, governments offering tax "incentives" (bribes) to Corporations does bring work to local labor for a limited amount of time. That said, some areas (like Iowa) have done audits of their "incentive" (bribe) programs and have found either that their local economies either experienced NO net gain or have experienced LOSSES to their tax base because of these programs.

But in terms of politics, as we speak, the Texas Film Commission is right now trying to determine if a film "qualifies" for a tax break from Texas... the issue? Those in charge of the program don't agree with the politics of the filmmaker. So, what we have is a situation where a GOVERNMENT is deciding which FOR-PROFIT products should be made AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE not on creative grounds, but on POLITICAL GROUNDS.

It's a very messy situation and argument to have and the ONLY way out is to disallow ANY "tax incentives" to ANY for-profit Corporations at all. Typically, these projects are being created by Corporations that HAVE enough financial backing and they don't need subsidies or incentives to make the product they want to make. But the result is that Corporations are able to play governments off one another by extorting them into seeing who can hand out the biggest subsidy/tax break/bribe in order to get the work in their area.

For the governments (local, state, national), it's a zero-sum game and often, it is played at a net loss to their economy...the entire reason they offered the bribe in the first place was to generate a positive gain in their economy. And now, as we see in Texas, those decisions are being made, not for economic reasons, but for political agendas.

Governments should NEVER be involved in for-profit industries except to regulate them to protect workers and the environment.

Now, that said, the specific example you gave above is about a Judge who makes films with political opinions expressed. In that judges are voted in and have Party affiliations typically, I don't see anything necessarily wrong with it. Yes, ideally a Judge will decide cases per the Law in an impartial manner, but we all know that people have opinions and are rarely objective. So, with that in mind, it's probably GOOD that he (the Judge) is making movies because it lets the electorate know where he really stands politically before they cast their next votes. If only ALL politicians and public officials would do that, then maybe we'd have much better representation.

I think it was Peter (from Peter, Paul, & Mary) who once said that he thought that every politician should be required to sing prior to an election. His reasoning was because it's very difficult for someone to lie while they are singing. Anything the gives us a truer sense of a persons actual motives and agenda should be encouraged. This could, of course, backfire, as the lesson of Leni Riefenstahl teaches so tragically. There's a thin line between propaganda and pure documentary so every final product in that vein has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

As far as the judge goes I can understand the politicians being unhappy with any non-work related projects (such as films) that might be used or misrepresented as representing the opinions of the municipality. It makes them look less serious and provides their political enemies with ammo.

RJSchwarz

As far as the guy in example is concerned, I would not be surprised if he were able to quit his day job and focus on doing only these movies (in addition to his book writing, etc). His inflammatory treatment is certain to find enthusiastic audience.

There are quite many people who do this (make amateur shorts and features on weekends). Some do it as a fun hobby, with family and friends, others are quite passionate and perhaps even secretly hope to break out into the business.

I would say, those who are clearly amateurs, and do it for fun, often approach it just like any other hobby. Over time, they acquire equipment (semi-pro or even pro cameras, tripods, audio gear, lights, etc), some even build sets in their basement/garage... Just like spending fortune building model train sets, or RC airplanes, these folks invest in their filmmaking gear, only to produce one or two shorts/features in a year, working weekends and an occasional vacation here and there.

In the old times, when the closest you could get to filmmaking was super 8, serious filmmaking used to be limited to those who pursued it professionally. The barrier of entry was simply too high for anyone but most dedicated and committed to attempt it. Today, two average monthly paycheques can procure a decent semi-pro HD camcorder and enough starting gear to actually create a movie that could possibly even be shown in a theatre. The technology has pretty much eliminated that barrier of entry, so everyone and anyone is making movies today. This is similar to the developments in desktop publishing, where everyone has suddenly become a graphic designer, because they now have MS Publisher (or worse, MS Word). How many signs do we see out there, "typeset" in MS Word (Times New Roman), printed on a Letter-sized paper (landscape mode)?

For those who are strictly amateur, hobbyist moviemakers, this doesn't matter. However, for those who have talent, drive, determination and desire to become professional moviemakers, starting independent and hoping to get noticed has become extremely challenging. The abundance of shorts and features everywhere created so much white noise that it has become fairly impossible to discover creative independent works.

Long ago, to get a chance to shoot your first movie meant years of apprenticeship, working on all kinds of productions in all kinds of functions and building skills and connections until somebody knows you well enough to give you enough money for a movie. Once you shot that movie, you had much easier time showing it off in order to gain interest. Today, it takes you less than a year to save enough money (even with a crappy entry-level post-college job) to shoot a movie independently. However, showing it to someone meaningful has become much more of a challenge.

In the end, there is only so much moviemaking work out there. This hasn't changed much since the old days. It used to be difficult to shoot a movie and easier to showcase it; it is now easy to make one, but hard to get it noticed. The balance remained the same: likelihood of becoming a professional filmmaker is no greater than it was before. The only difference is, anyone can now experience the process of making films. And that's surely a great thing!

Another thought on the issue. Building moviemaking experience used to be a privilege reserved for the few. With a consumer/prosumer camcorder, practically anyone can begin building that experience. Proliferation of filmmaking books that explain the process makes it easy to start. The consequence is that today, among all those aspiring to make it into the movie industry, we have significantly higher percentage of people who have actually shot films and actually know a bit about the moviemaking process.

Technology has made it accessible and affordable. As I said, it's a great thing!