Oak Street Films

This blog is supposed to be about films and filmmaking, and its sporadic moments of political focus are meant to relate generally to the broader topic at hand. I hope you’ll excuse me, then, if I make a brief comment which is entirely politically inflected, and will accept my reassurances that I’ll redirect my gaze toward the cinema after we as a nation have made the momentous decision with which we are now faced.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild (belonging as she does to that bizarre sect which formerly supported Hillary Clinton but which now inexplicably supports McCain) argues that:

The fundamental problem with Senator Obama’s stealth economics is that his dogma will not make America stronger or fairer. Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation’s $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation’s total needs. It has been shown that reductions in tax rates increase tax revenues because private enterprise strengthens the economy which in turn creates a larger tax base. For example, in 2003 the richest Americans paid $136 billion in taxes and after the Bush tax cut in 2006 they paid $274 billion.

I’d be laughing if I weren’t so unbelievably nauseous at the trotting-out of this tired old Richie Rich canard. How ridiculous is it to argue for a tax policy that benefits only 1% of this nation’s citizens? Seriously? How much more ridiculous does that same argument become when it’s posted on the internet as opposed to being communicated over champagne in some country club dining room?

Most ridiculous of all is the absurd notion that poor people’s votes can be won by arguing for policies which make them even poorer.

There are exactly two kinds of power in this world: that based on having money and that based on a mobilized populace. When Obama wins the presidency tomorrow we’ll finally be seeing that latter kind of power once again. As the pendulum swings in that direction, those who defend the idea of power-by-wealth would do well to keep their heads down.

David Bordwell has written a sprawlingly rigorous investigation of the 2008 presidential campaigns’ fascination with the concept of “narrative,” beginning with the odd appropriation of Humanities jargon by both candidates (and by the media), continuing on to trace the literary styles and rhetorical devices employed in the candidates’ books, and finally settling upon a structural exegesis of the 30-minute documentary (or “infomercial,” if you prefer) that the Obama campaign rolled out last night on television. Here’s one fun quotation:

So the campaigns may teach us something of interest about narratives: You can’t have a gripping narrative without some suspense. You can do without curiosity or surprise, but a story lacking suspense won’t keep us turning enough pages to be curious or surprised. [...] Maybe that’s why the McCain campaign never had a “compelling narrative.” It didn’t build up enough of a sense of how it would win or how, after the election, the future would be different.

It’s a fascinating piece, though probably more so for “educated elites” than for political junkies. Highly recommended reading.

The AFFT, an organization dedicated to “creating a strong and exciting future for the film and television industry in Tennessee,” will host an event in Chattanooga from 6:00PM to 8:00PM on November 11 in the 7th floor auditorium of the EPB building. The organization serves as an advocate for film and television professionals in Nashville, and this event will feature an open discussion of what steps AFFT might take to affect the state’s legislative agenda.

More information on membership is available on the organization’s site; for more information about this event, download the invitation.

The first films ever made were documentaries. Cinematic technology was, of course, the child of photography, and so the first filmmakers instinctively used their new toy much as they’d previously used their older silver-on-celluloid-based toys: they captured little bits of reality for posterity. There was little–if any–artistry to be found in these actualités, as reality-based films were then known. Workers filed out of factories, trains steamed frighteningly forward, elephants were electrocuted for the purpose of industrial agitprop, and parents ate meals with their babies. This wasn’t yet entertainment–it was a fascinating technological novelty. It was only a few years, however, until pioneers like Georges Méliès began to experiment with the cinema’s more fantastical possibilities, and almost immediately from (roughly) that point forward the cinema began to metamorphose into the primarily fictive, narrative medium with which we are all now familiar. Embedded within this transformation is the root from which the essential and inscrutable conundrums of the modern cinema have grown: if the filmmaker’s camera is capable only of recording that which is physically placed before its aperture in the real world, how are we to reconcile that fact with our common use of the technology for the creation of fictional works? What are the metaphysical and/or spiritual implications of a machine which is capable of turning objective reality into artifice? Can we really trust this camera’s “eye”? For that matter, can we truly trust our own? And perhaps most perplexingly of all, is it wise to accept a documentary as an objective representation of reality given the medium’s capacity to distort and to fantasticize actual events, even when clearly the camera is capable only of recording that which truly happens in its presence? Don’t the filmmakers’ aesthetic tastes, political predilections, and philosophical leanings get in the way of objectivity?

Read more »

Isn’t it wonderful to know that we don’t have to make our own moral judgments thanks to a gaggle of loons in Florida who want to do it for us? Via Robin Bougie:

Nearly 300 members of the Anglican Christ Church in Jacksonville, Florida gathered on Sunday, Oct. 19th 2008 for an unusual ceremony. As the congregation cheered, more than 100 reels of classic porn and sexploitation films were thrown into a pile, ritually torched, and then hosed down with water from a Jacksonville Fire and Rescue truck blessed by the priest.

“Obviously, we knew the right thing to do would be to destroy it, and not let it ever be out on the market”, pastor Mark Eldredge later told a reporter.

The church came into possession of the vintage film canisters when they purchased the 13-acre “Playtime Drive-In” for $1.4 million after the 60-year-old theater folded in 2007. The flock had found the historic stash above the concession stand, and some reels were even hidden in the walls. They did not watch any of the films, nor did they record the names of the movies they destroyed, some of which may have been the only remaining prints — and are now lost forever.

Read more »

I’ve just put together the (first?) trailer for Hell Is Other People. View it (and leave your comments) after the jump.
Read more »

Here are a few things I’ve learned during the shooting of Hell Is Other People:

• The availability of potential locations is entirely subject to the capricious whims of incommunicado sorority girls and/or of paranoid corporate legal teams (see below).
• Abandoned, isolated parking lots are apparently very dangerous places; film crews are 100% likely to wound themselves mortally (perhaps by stubbing a toe on a cracked bit of asphalt, one presumes) and then sue the owners of the lot, even if the producers and the cast have offered to sign a meticulously cautious liability waiver (see above).

Read more »

While it remains to be seen if this massive Wall Street snafu is an early indication of a coming depression (and historically speaking, we’re about due for one, aren’t we?) it’s not hard to imagine that it will end up having a quite devastating effect on the lives of artists of all kinds–and perhaps small independent film producers in particular, due to a completely saturated cinematic market. Those of us who (at least sometimes) actually get paid to make films are likely to see less work, and at the same time those of us who make films on the side for the love of the medium will probably have to tighten our belts and work even harder at our “real” jobs, thus leaving even less time and energy for filmmaking. In fact, I’m already personally feeling the effects of this economic crash in a very direct way: it’s been months since I’ve landed a gig of any appreciable size, and prospective clients are telling me flat-out that the current situation is making them more than a bit skittish with regard to their budgets. My cupboard contains only about a half-pound of dry rice and maybe a few cups of flour, and my wallet contains nothing at all. Unfortunately this is, quite probably, only the beginning. I think it’s fair to say that I’m officially freaking out.

As terrified as I am with the prospect of Sarah Palin having any chance whatsoever at holding a position of power on the national (and, de facto, global) level, I’m surprised that I didn’t make the connection earlier. Like many other Americans I have been utterly transfixed by the political goings-on of this historic presidential campaign cycle, and after watching Palin embarrass herself–and indeed, all of us–with her frankly idiotic responses to Katie Couric’s questions last week, I admit to tuning in to last Thursday’s Vice-Presidential debate with a certain impish feeling of schadenfreude. As I sat watching Palin’s mechanical detachment from the proceedings–including her open and unabashed refusal to respond to Gwen Ifill’s questions–a name popped into my head: Chauncey Gardener. On the strength of that impression I decided it was time to give Hal Ashby’s Being There another look. It’s a film which excoriates the televisual superficiality of our times like no other, and apart from its broad critique of our collective inability to see reality even as we stare straight at it, it’s also an eerily relevant film at this exact moment thanks to Peter Sellers’ brilliant portrayal of what amounts to a male version of John McCain’s running mate.

Read more »

In my little rant the other day, I discussed the benefits of producing a film in a very relaxed and flexible way: one doesn’t necessarily need an overarchingly detailed script, a huge crew, or even a lot of money, in spite of what we all tend to believe.

It’s hard–if not impossible–to produce a film with zero money, however; it’s nice to be able to reimburse the cast for their fuel expenses (especially with gas prices where they are right now), and it’s only fair to buy them some lunch every once in a while. Videotape obviously still costs a few dollars, even if the expense is nowhere near that of working with film.

As small as these kinds of expenses are when compared to the bloated budgets of most films made these days, they can still at times be hard to cover when one is a struggling independent producer who has enough trouble just trying to feed oneself. That being the case, even a near-zero-budget project can require at least a little fundraising.

I am looking for small donations for Hell Is Other People–$5, $10, $20…maybe you’d like to donate a a gas card…or maybe you own a restaurant and would like to donate a lunch for three or four people. These kinds of things–while seemingly financially insignificant on an individual level–are very helpful, and can help me keep my (unpaid) cast happy. All donors will receive credits as associate producers, and in many cases we may be able to work out a way to make your donations tax-deductible.

If you’d like to help: you can donate financially via PayPal, or contact me to discuss any kind of non-financial donation you might be willing to make.

I, and my cast, thank you in advance.