Posted by sean at 169.71.1.248 on May 03, 2002 at 14:09:53:
In Reply to: Obviously that is true. posted by Isis on May 03, 2002 at 13:38:13:
: We've all got to negotiate these questions constantly. Personally I'd draw the line short of shilling for some lousy corporation. But really, I was just being over the top in my rant, it's not a completely logical argument.
if you're a filmmaker, you spend your life shilling for lousy corporations, if you want any sort of an audience at all. You, the artist, are making the money for the distributor of the film in the hopes that they'll then give you more the next time to make another one. This isn't like Rain Man; there is no Quantiss to look to as a safe-haven.
I read something that accused Todd Solondz of "selling out" by putting the big red box into "Storytelling" to get it an R-rating. The person said "If he was with our company, we'd release it un-related." But the guy's company has no leverage in the market, and thus wouldn't have even been able to get that film the shitty release that it had. Those are the choices in the world ... if you're an artist, meaning you make your living creating art, then you have to make your living that way.
Where do you work? that is to say, where does your money come from?