I've yet to see Get Out, but I already admire its headstrong bravery to confront dangerous and unpopular mainstream topics. Jordan Peele brought up the elephant in the room, something "entertainers" are prohibited from by their masters, agents, sponsors and even their fanbase. I've intentionally saved Get Out for my yearly ritual of the major releases that I wasn't able to see in theaters.
I enjoy the theater experience but not locally. We have some seedy mini-multiplexes here. They occasionally get cool revival showings or a new indie film, but its mainly commercial films aimed at teens, the military, Christians and old people. I live in the Southern United States which has a long history as a conservative, bigoted market. My best theater experiences have always been out of state (Colorado, Pennsylvania, Florida) and Atlanta is one of the better Southern cities. Florida has a good history of exploitation and indie film of a more left and experimental nature.
Please, comment where you're from down below and what the local cinemas are like.
What gets me is that films (at least in North America) are made mostly by the banks' money. Now the theaters probably are in debt to banks too because its just expensive to start anything in this economy. So the banks are in control of both the production and consumption of media. I think its a rigged system that eats itself. Government regulation of cinema & maybe all media is preferable to consumerist propaganda put out by conglomerates. And it doesn't mean all films will be sanctioned by gov. Just the ones made with high government subsidies. The new independents will be the films made by Hollywood or big media empires. If you want to start your own indie, use the profits kept from the government film you made. And by "government film" I just mean it passes some democratically agreed standards. Cinema developed because of science labs given government grants to innovate technology. Never forget cinema is first an artistic science.
http://www.filmsite.org/pre20sintro.html
And Thomas Edison, who gave the resources to start the North American film boom, was not a fan of banks and the current, almost mandatory trends in movie production. From his wiki:
Thomas Edison was an advocate for monetary reform in the United
States. He was ardently opposed to the gold standard and debt-based
money. Famously, he was quoted in the New York Times stating "Gold is a
relic of Julius Caesar, and interest is an invention of Satan."[110]
In the same article, he expounded upon the absurdity of a monetary
system in which the taxpayer of the United States, in need of a loan,
can be compelled to pay in return perhaps double the principal, or even
greater sums, due to interest. His basic point was that, if the
Government can produce debt-based money, it could equally as well
produce money that was a credit to the taxpayer.[110]
He thought at length about the subject of money in 1921 and 1922. In
May 1922, he published a proposal, entitled "A Proposed Amendment to the
Federal Reserve Banking System".[111]
In it, he detailed an explanation of a commodity-backed currency, in
which the Federal Reserve would issue interest-free currency to farmers,
based on the value of commodities they produced. During a publicity
tour that he took with friend and fellow inventor, Henry Ford,
he spoke publicly about his desire for monetary reform. For insight, he
corresponded with prominent academic and banking professionals. In the
end, however, Edison's proposals failed to find support and were
eventually abandoned
Film should be treated as it once was as more than a cheap entertainment business but a kind of encompassing technology like print to educate in classrooms, share journalistic news, spread spiritual awareness (church films have always been big in the South). Cinema is bigger than Hollywood or narrative commercial filmmaking. Its a social service that should be regulated and given bigger tax breaks. State government gives small tax incentives to film producers but the government doesn't own the federal reserve banks that milk them dry through media conglomeration.
The U.S. gov needs to give huge tax breaks to INDEPENDENT producers and less to the debt financiers running corporate Hollywood (and trying to run the government). That would give leverage back to the artists and/or capitalists producing the films and maybe help pay off our country's serious debt. The private money in Hollywood takes too much profit from the world through monopolizing.
Let true socialist American cinema take the money back from those who abuse it. I think a mixed economy of socialism & capitalism is the only answer for the world's dollar and filmmaking should be at the forefront of making this transition that will lead the 21st century into the future. So much of cinema is already Marxist leaning anyway. Its always better than the purely capitalist or communist cinema (aka fascist, authoritarian & solely technical). The government is afraid to get behind the arts but the arts are the only reason we live to enjoy the government. Not to be morose but you know modern life is centered on entertainment, escapism and distraction from terrible world government issues but now even our amusement is stifled. We are reaching a head where none of the old system works anymore and it all needs new life.
Directors like Godard, Fellini, Lloyd Kaufman & definitely Jess Franco have anticipated this future for cinema. Its fun to see how tuned in they were, but now our generation has to see independent art thrive and have its own Revolution & Renaissance. The 21st century of cinema must be better than the 20th.
No comments:
Post a Comment