Patrick Sun
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1999
- Messages
- 39,664
It appears film talent didn't fall from the Zwick family tree. Thanks for the confirmation. Joel definitely learned a lot from setting up jokes from his TV sitcom days.
I'm counting not only the obvious Gangs, but stuff like Chicago and even Piano Teacher.
You mean, Roman Polanski's The Pianist.
~Edwin
But IMO it is a "fake" independent film - it doesn't embody the values of artistic risk-taking and intelligence that independent film is supposed to honor.
I'd agree. I was referring to artistic independence, that it seemed to be made without studio interference. I think they made the movie they wanted to make. Certainly, though, it isn't a risky movie by any means, although I don't think all independent film has to be, by its nature, risk-taking.
Certainly, though, it isn't a risky movie by any means, although I don't think all independent film has to be, by its nature, risk-taking.
I dunno. Sinking $5 million and lot of work into a film that every studio turned down, starring an actress that agents wouldn't even send up for parts, sounds pretty risky to me. I agree that the end result is almost classical in its themes and approach (which, I suspect, is a big reason for its success). But the idea of "independent cinema" is to make movies that the studios don't want to make for one reason or another. MBFGW fits that definition perfectly.
M.
I don't think anyone is denying that the film was a significant financial risk. It just wasn't an artistic one.
First of all, I don't agree with the distinction. Putting something in front of the public that you've been repeatedly told the public doesn't want to see is a form of artistic risk -- especially when it's your own life and you're the one playing the part. (Obviously, I'm referring to writer/star Nia Vardalos.)
And second, I don't share your implicit definition of "independent" films as films that take "artistic risk" (whatever you mean by that). If a film is made outside the studio system because studios won't make it, that's an independent film. Now, one can like or dislike the product -- and you've made it clear where you stand -- but trying to shore up that opinion by invoking the "true" spirit of independent film is just an empty game of semantics.
M.
But IMO it is a "fake" independent film - it doesn't embody the values of artistic risk-taking and intelligence that independent film is supposed to honor.
By your definition, you're implying that independent films are higher fare films normally not made within the studio system and automatically comes with it an expectation of "artistic" integrity. As such, that definition is false.
I would have to agree with Michael here. An independent film has nothing to do with the quality of the product.
~Edwin
You mean, Roman Polanski's The Pianist
Sorry, yes, the Palm D'Or winner, but I get it confused with Haneke's well-received film which has a 2002 US release (and was just making the rounds unless I again have them confused). Both would be considered "contenders" just from some respect at Cannes.
Of course Piano Teacher (Haneke) seems to have polarized some audiences, or rather is simply too harsh for a typical Oscar nom.
FWIW, i'm not Greek
?? It's written by and stars a Greek, was discovered by a Greek (Rita Wilson) and seems to be very popular in the Greek community, so why are you so offended?
If it's because it is likely to offend the political or cultural values of that public - that's artistic risk.
By your standards, MBFGW was/is a HUGE artistic risk!
It's a big fat fun movie, not great, not brilliant, but I had a good time, and I sure don't feel guilty for laughing. Though I'm not close to any of them, I have loud and rowdy relatives that would put those folks to shame. And they're German/Irish!
Now if only Windex would hire Nia's pop to be a spokesperson!
I think you torture the concept of 'artistic risk' when you define it in terms of 'putting something in front of the public you've been told the public doesn't want to see', *without* defining why it is the public doesn't want to see it.
But in this case, the public obviously does want to see it.
This entire discussion of artistic risk is a red herring. A film does not have to "offend the political or cultural values of that public" in order to be good. It's just an irrelevant notion you introduced into the discussion in an effort to justify what, at bottom, is simply a matter of your personal taste.
M.