[Image-1]
Our position is that the “film industry” is simply not viable in the way that we participate and understand it at a professional level.
Sadly, our bills cannot be paid by art films and youtube videos, or an annual smattering of low-budget TV shows. We’ve tried.
In fact, the Chronicle reports that the major “film studio” in Dartmouth Halifax reports owing over five million dollars to creditors.
This to me, as a professional, this in no way sounds like a viable film industry, nor has it been. Our numbers can attest to that as well.
Tax credits or no tax credits, the industry simply isn’t here.
We had hoped it would be. —TET
This article appears in Apr 23-29, 2015.
UNDERSTANDING FILM AT THE “PROFESSIONAL LEVEL”
“Our position is that the ‘film industry’ is simply not viable in the way that we participate and understand it at the professional level.” TET
It appears that there is a fundamental conflict between the way that those who participate in the “film industry” understand it at the professional level and what it’s true nature should be. Quite simply, the issue reduces to whether or not film is to be understood as art or not. But art, properly conceived, is not “viable” in the narrow economic sense of profit portrayed here. In other words, art is not just another commodity. It is not, therefore, an “industry” at all but rather a calling, that which is never reducible to the blinkered accountant’s columns recording profit and loss. The commodification of art, like the commodification of life itself, is an abomination.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
you’re misinformed
Prove it.
mm said, ” the issue reduces to whether or not film is to be understood as art or not.”
I can’t comment on the economics of the Nova Scotia film industry but I would like to take up the point of film as an “industry” vs a “calling” or “art form”.
First of all, it’s important to recognize that the film industry is part of the larger domain of “show business” …. with an emphasis on the word business. Most film that appears in cinemas and television is made simply as entertainment and diversion. The maker’s primary concern is profit. A movie like Paul Blart Mall Cop (which I will probably never see myself) may have been universally dismissed by critics but you have to give the makers credit – it earned a handsome profit … and that’s why they made a sequel. In that regard, the film industry as a whole is very profitable and a decent film can be a profitable global export.
Secondly, in terms of artistic merit, film is like any other endeavour. Any creation exists on the continuum from an awful waste of the planets resources all the way up to a masterful, stunning piece of art. It doesn’t matter if it’s painting, furniture making, music recording, film…there can only be a few that rise above the rest. But it is the existence of the bad art, the mediocre film, etc., that enables the very few sublime creations to emerge. If there were no amateur painters it would be difficult to obtain art supplies. If there was no mediocre literature there would be fewer print houses. And, If there was no “show business” the infrastructure to support the making of “art” film would not exist. In that regard, the mundane is at the service of the great and serves a necessary function to enable and support those who rise above.
OB, FYI, there is no major film studio in Dartmouth. There never has been ! If you actually knew anything about the Motion Picture business, you’d know the closest we’ve ever come to actual studio space,was Electropolish, that’s the space NS Power refused to renew the lease on after 13 million dollars of Provincial Tax money was paid to them to ‘lease’ it.
No political patronage there…just good business by the Province LMAO ! ! ! !
The Dartmouth Company you speak of is in fact an Equipment Rental Company, that Rents, sells & services Audio & Lighting equipment mostly to stage shows. They also have some small rental space that can be used to put ‘Sets’ in for Motion Picture .
If you have ever been in an actual Motion Picture Studio, you would instantly be able tho see the difference….even if you know nothing about them, to compare the 2 spaces , say Dartmouth or the old Electropolis, to an actual Studio space would be like looking at an old Lada, & a Lamborghini ….you don’t have to know SFA about cars to be able to see the massive difference in the 2 …same thing for the ‘Studio’s’ here in Nova Scotia & say Toronto, BC, Hollywood etc etc etc ! ! !
http://www.lawschoolblog.org/wp-content/up…
RSVP
Full of Beans (04/28, 11:51AM)
As I suspected we are talking at cross purposes in respect to film-making as an industry or as an art form. The distinction is not wholly academic since the film tax credit, in my view, rightly applies to the one – an art form – and not to the other – a (floundering) industry.
Your first point confirmed my suspicions when you assert the film industry is just a part of “show business” and that the maker’s primary concern is profit. This may be true from a blinkered economic perspective in which the free market forces of profit and loss work themselves out. If this is the case then there is no reason why the film industry in particular should benefit from the public purse. But my point that film, properly conceived, should attempt to attain the level of art and where there is no such attempt then it should suffer the same fate as any other entrepreneurial activity.
Your second point oddly appears to ascribe some sort of Darwinian approach to artistic merit in which bad or mediocre art enables the very few works possessing sublime creativity to emerge. On the contrary, I maintain that any judgement of the intrinsic merit of art is “sui generis,” that its emergence is not the working of some sort of fertilizing mulch made up of the bad or mediocre but rather is to be assessed on its own terms. That is why, in my view, the commodification of art – something which is impossible in any case – works to debase it rather than elevate it and so deserves no benefit from the public purse.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
“Art” and “Commerce” do not NECESSARILY have to be opposed.
Film, including commercial movie entertainment, is a highly complex visual art form that can only come into being with the involvement of armies of scriptwriters, actors, cinematographers, musicians, costume and set designers, recording engineers, special effects experts, etc., etc., etc., all of whom are working in very specialized and difficult “arts” even if the final product is not considered to be particularly Capital-A “Art”, as in “art for it’s own sake” (which is often thought of as “difficult” “academic” or “boring” but that is for another discussion.)
I would argue that there are hundreds of films that have been both commercially successful, and with enourmous popular appeal (some critically-acclaimed, others panned by critics) but that should be considered as important parts of 20th/21st century visual culture (“art”) — including, just for the sake of example: Star Wars, Blade Runner, Taxi Driver, The Shining, Fargo, The Big Liebowski, Casablanca, The Mission, Toy Story, Up, Lord of the Rings, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Pulp Fiction, The Wizard of Oz, Ferris Beuller’s Day Off, Silence of the Lambs, Rear Window, The Matrix, The Dark Knight Trilogy, The King’s Speech, and hundreds more from all genres from the last 8 or 9 decades. I would also include many network TV and Cable shows in this list.
I would also argue that the last hundred years have also produced an incredible array of popular music of all kinds, and many of the very greatest songwriters and musicians have also been extraordinarily commercially successful. The fact that Bob Dylan has made millions (while other lesser lights like Nickleback and Britney Spears) have also made millions) does not mean Dylan’s writing talent–his art–is invalid, it just means that he is very, very fortunate. If Dylan had just been busking for himself in NYC for 50 years, he might still be a great songwriter, but most of us would have no way of knowing about him or his work.
Film, and also recorded music, are interesting because they can only happen with a combination of creativity, technology, and some involvement of business. Even a very small, amateur independent film (or recording) made only because an artist wanted to express a personal point of view can be expensive to make. Even 1 minute of video or high quality sound recording can be an ambitious, time-consuming, and expensive project.
There may be good reasons for keeping “art” and “commerce” separate (and yes, much great art is made with no intention of commercial success–they are not one in the same), however art in any form, and especially film, is not cheap to make–everything about it costs a lot of money, and that has to come from somewhere.
Well yes, but my point – that it should not come from the public purse – still stands.
Speaking of the movies – “Madea Makes Scrapple” looks like real riot.
http://files.mom.me/photos/2015/04/28/135-…
Oh Tyler Perry, a troubled nation needs you healing wisdom now more than ever.
TET
The fact that you’re referencing You tube videos as evidence of low-budget TV shows tells me how little you understand about the film industry in Nova Scotia. But since that’s what you think, I really can’t change your ‘professional’ opinion on evidence of one unnamed Dartmouth “Film studio” which you hyphenated for reasons of disingenuous ambiguity. Good job.
what a hypocrite Mumbles is… he constantly goes on about his ‘higher education’ .
Is there any institution besides our medical ones which unlike all others ,is there for Everyone, that gets a bigger chunk of money from the ‘public purse’ than Universities aka higher education facilities.
Without the public purse, Universities would become more like water bed stores, very rare.
Well, your comment to the effect that universities are not there for everyone says more about you than it does about universities. Of course, they are not there for those who, for whatever reason, lack the intelligence and ability to profit from them but this must not be charged up to the universities but rather to those who, um, lack the intelligence and ability to profit from them. Such a lack can often be seen in those whose assertions lack supporting reasons, such as yours to the effect that I am a “hypocrite.” Like to explain? No, I didn’t think so.
Lol, you’re a hypocrite because you have been sheltered from the real world by your families old, Southend money and constantly judge people by a standard which is reserved for wankers who have lived a privileged life of personal, educational pursuit. Bravo, nobody cares ya douchebag!!!
“Indeed, one wonders if the phrase “cognitive attainment” could properly be used at all where you are concerned. I don’t believe they can be.”
You don’t really believe that.
Az a matter of fact I do.
You know it’s serious when montrealman substitutes “z” for “s” to show how “street” he is keeping it.
LIES, ALL LIES!!!
You have already assessed my “cognitive attainment” as “Abysmally low”.
“Both what you believe and what you say are to be found at an abysmally low level of cognitive attainment.”
How is it possible to have some, but also none? My, this IS a conundrum. I must have some proof.
Keep smiling.
DELETED!
My reply to Stephen Harper was deleted. Don’t know why. It was logical. Oh well. Keep smiling!