16 dezembro 2008

Novas leituras

"Genuine children of the New Hollywood, the indies absorbed, at least in the beginning, their anti-Hollywood aesthetic. What defines an indie film has been argued ad nauseam, but in those days, despite quibbles about this or that film, there existed something of a consensus. The purists reigned. As director / producer Sidney Pollack puts it, “Independent usually meant anything that was an alternative to recipe films or mainstream films made by studios.” They were anything Hollywood was not. If Hollywood made “movies”, indie made “films”. If Hollywood sold fantasy and escapism, indies thrived on realism and engagement. If Hollywood avoided controversial subjects, indies embraced them. If Hollywood movies were expensive, indie films were cheap. If Hollywood used stars, indie preferred unknowns, even nonactors. If Hollywood retained final cut, indies demanded it for themselves. If Hollywood strip-mined genres and dropped movies out of cookie cutters, indie films expressed personal visions and were therefore unique and sequel-proof. If Hollywood made movies by committee, indies were made by individual sensibilities who wrote as well as directed, and sometimes shot and edited as well. While Hollywood employed directors, hired to do a job, indies were filmmakers who worshipped at the altar of art. While directors accumulated BMWs and homes in Malibu, filmmakers made unimaginable sacrifices and lived in New York, preferably on the Lower East Side. They scammed and hustled, lied and cheated, even sol drugs or their own blood, to finance their films."
Down and Dirty Pictures:
Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film
Peter Biskind, página 19.

1 comentário:

Daniel Pereira disse...

O Biskind é demasiado romântico, tem demasiada vontade de perpetuar os mitos.