Jason Anderson, one of Toronto's finer film critics/writers, penned an interesting article for the current issue of
The Grid newspaper. Titled "Toronto film's next generation", this piece treats the up-and-coming filmmakers in this fine city, and notes why they might matter. The writer is cautious about directly claiming any "Toronto New Wave" just yet, but he outlines a new batch of short and feature-length films produced by several young filmmakers who have something to say. The new feature film,
Tower, directed by Kazik Radwanski, demonstrates that there just might be a new vitality in Toronto's film scene. It is opens next week at the
Royal. I should really make an effort to journey down to College Street to see for myself. (On average, I find small, no-name films much more exciting to watch than those bloated and empty pig-budget crap-fests.)
Jason Anderson drives his article with the notion that technology is making producing micro-budgeted films easier than ever before. This reality sends most excuses for not making a film to the excuse bin. In fact many no-budget films from the past had mostly lab costs to contend with. Erase the (film) raw-stock, processing, printing, and post-production costs and you literally had films which were made for next-to-nothing.
Where's my bin? Oh, there it is, I must have used my foot to 'accidentally' push it under my desk.
Mr. Anderson's article from
The Grid...
http://www.thegridto.com/culture/film/toronto-film%E2%80%99s-next-generation/
3 comments:
On the other side of the coin however, we don't need camcorder micro-budget crapfests any more than we need bloated Hollywood crapfests. What we need in either camp is stuff that is GOOD. Having a palmcorder doesn't make everyone Truffaut any more than having a computer suddenly turns one into Tolstoy. Having said that, I too am intrigued to see "Tower".
I agree.
I've mentioned the article published in EYE magazine, a few years ago, on the 'digital filmmaking revolution' (I regret never having kept a copy). The story was an example of fine journalism and analysis in the way it over-viewed, both pro and con, the fact that anyone today can pick up a camera and make a film. If someone has a laptop and a camera, a movie is not far away.
Yes... the con, as articulated by a York University film professor, is that we'll just have a lot more bad films out there. It's true, that's what is happening.
I worked in video duplication for a while and it got to the point where I was getting small boxes full of MiniDV tapes (30-40). Tape after tape of utter rubbish. If it was a documentary being made, then the footage was mostly a waste of tape stock. One must learn what to shoot. We copied a lot of completed 'films', too. Most of those were awful.
Fine... you're allowed to make a film and have fun. I suppose it is equally true that you must recognize when 'film' is not your bag, if you continually fail to make a watchable piece.
That York U prof was absolutely right....
On a sort-of related note, Piers Handling received a lot of flack from people for his statement a couple of years back about there being too many Canadian movies made that year that no one will either have the opportunity to see them all, much less the time. His words: "I'm happy that people are making films and all that kind of stuff, but what kind of resources have been taken away from filmmakers who perhaps needed those resources, that could have used those resources? Are there significant filmmakers with things to say?"
I am completely impartial to TIFF since September is my busiest month of the year, and the last thing on my agenda is to attend the film festival- therefore, from the viewpoint of someone who has need to praise or damn him, I think he was absolutely right. Quantity is not quality.
Post a Comment