Two things made me decide to write my blog this week on obscenity particularly attitudes towards sex. One, the whole kerfuffle about Bush uttering an "obscenity" into a hot microphone at the G8 summit and two, a comment a British friend who now lives in the US made to me when we met for a drink on a balmy summer evening in Notting Hill last week. As the Hollywood Reporter talked of fines and decency laws being broken because the utterance had been broadcast, British papers barely gave the "incident" a mention except to say that Blair as always (who is not enjoying great popularity here at the moment) seemed inept at handling the situation. Obscenity, at least in the American sense of the word, has to be pretty obscene to get some real attention here. This is, you must remember, the country of the Page 3 girl - a pinup of a topless "model" which graces the inside (it's not porn) of the popular papers here.
Which brings me to the comment my friend made to me. A recent husband and father of a less than year old child, this friend said that he felt that the UK had become more sexualized than he remembers. It should be noted that this friend only left London a few years ago. He went on to say that he felt like "everything was about sex' here. Whether it was selling cars or dish soap, somehow sex was involved. My response was surprise but also it made me think about the very glaring differences between the attitudes about sex in Europe and sex in America. Right now on television in the UK, I have counted at least three separate adverts for dish soap, yoghurt and deoderant in which a man gets naked. You don't see any frontal (we are not Italians!) but there is a definite view in 2 out of 3 of the ads of a naked ass. When I first saw the ads, I was shocked. Now I really love them as they remind me that sex and sexuality is a part of everyday life and so should be a part of our everyday culture. Sure girls are dressing a little sluttier a bit too early but I wonder if that is because they are more sexualized by the media or because I notice more as I am fast approaching the point where I could have a teenager myself.

This all brings me to the point of sex in cinema. Think Film will be releasing John Cameron Mitchell's SHORTBUS later this year in the US. The film depicts attractive singles and couples having unsimulated sex - that would be real sex to you and me. Though I haven's seen the film, people I know and trust who saw it at Cannes really loved the humanity of it. Not one of them mentioned the sex until I asked about it. I wonder how audiences in the US are going to react. When 9 Songs came out, no one went to see it. Audiences seemed to be so turned off by the idea that they were going to see real human connection in a physical way that they missed out on a heartwrenching tale of lost desire. Intimacy, a film by Patrice Chereau, met a similar fate. Interestingly, when Intimacy was released here in the UK, there were very erudite articles in The Guardian (the arts paper) about the actress and the unsimulated sex with someone that was not her husband. In the US, the film went straight to video.

With the President (who is from Texas for pity's sake) unable to swear on TV, I am not sure how far the US will really embrace sex in the cinema. Perhaps ShortBus will be the one to help break down some barriers in this regard.

One can always hope.

Keeping it indie,

Julie

Indie Inspirations

I have been working indie film for almost ten years and I feel lucky to talk to hundreds of independent filmmakers, to hear their stories and then share them with others.

It’s no surprise to me that every filmmaker has a different story to tell about the struggles to get their film made. And there always seems to be a struggle. Some filmmaker tried to get studio funding and then finally after constant rejection, turned to friends, family, and their own bank accounts to get their film made. Others turned to private investors as the only alternative to keeping the vision of their film.

Or the all-too-familiar stories of the filmmaker who successfully made the film, won awards at festivals, found distribution, but then didn’t get the marketing needed to find the audience. I have yet to talk to someone who says, “Yes, I wrote the script, everyone loved it, I raised a million dollars and made my film. Easy.”

Whatever the story, luckily they all had a happy ending of sorts—the film was playing in a theater. Although all these stories are different, there is one thing that remains the same. Despite rejection (or because of it) these artists decided to take their film into own hands in order to get it made.

To me, this is truly inspiring and I look to these visionaries to keep me motivated as I strive for the seemingly impossible. There are so many times when I want to give up or give in but then I remember. There are no rules.

So to all the artists out there who are struggling, I say don’t be afraid to declare your independence. If you get turned down by studio, raise the money and make the film yourself. If you can’t find a distributor, you can self-distribute. If you don’t like your festival time slot, sign up for film listing and fill your audience. If you don’t know where to start, read interviews with other filmmakers who were able to complete their film.

I’m not saying it will be easy—it will most likely be the hardest thing you ever do... and the most rewarding.

Long live indie film,

Michelle

I have been living and working in the UK for about a month now and as I go about my travels meeting various people in the film industry, one thing is abundantly clear - the short film is alive and well. Everyone - from producers to filmmakers to film commissions and festivals - is still amazingly enamored by the short film. There are seemingly thousands of schemes, festivals, outlets for the short filmmaker to hone their craft, meet a sales agent or get their work screened. Short films are even corporate supported by the likes of Orange, COBRA beer and Nokia. The COBRA beer shorts are even screened on television!

Coming from the no man's land for the short film as the US has become, it is both distressing and refreshing that the short film is thriving amongst these shores. I am so happy that the Brits have figured out a way to make money on the darn things - something that doesn't exist in the US. Cable channels like IFC and Sundance used to buy shorts with abandon. Atom Films and Hypnotic basically built their businesses on this fact alone. But wait, what is this I hear - there is no actual cash in the production or distribution of short films in the UK??? Then, why such much of the love. Making for the art is great if you have the cash but the kind of budgets being spent are pretty high for these films and I don't mean to be that girl but aren't the days of making shorts as "calling cards" over. There are music videos and commercials for that, even something as simple as the great pitch can get you a feature made these days. I don't get it. But being the intrepid reporter that I am, I asked around. "Why still make so many short films?" The responses pretty unanimously were "because we do" and "because we can get money for them" Unlike in the US, where the only place you are going to get the cash to make a short film is from your rich relative who wants to see their name on the big screen just once, in the UK, the government - both on the local and national level- provided funding for short films (production and distribution). I have seen a number of these films over the past few weeks and a lot of them are quite good so i can't gripe that the money is being spent on crap. I just am a bit confused as to why so much of the money and support is being given to making short films in Britain and not so much on funding, marketing and support for features to be made in Britain.

But maybe it's just me.

Keeping it indie,

Julie

The Los Angeles Film Festival was a year of trial and error. From the film selection to the change in locale it had quite a shift to previous years. To create more of a village type feel almost the entire festival was sent out to Westwood and spread throughout the theatres there. A great idea in theory and appealing to those only visiting but for the locals, the space proved far less central than past years at the Sunset 5 and Directors Guild screening rooms. With gas prices and traffic, many Eastsiders stayed home to garden instead of going to see up-and-coming filmmakers.

But the Sunset 5 was not completely pushed off the map. Some films debuted and closed in the West Hollywood location. For those who don't know the area, it's quite a trek between West Hollywood and Westwood. The days of jumping from screening to screening came to a halt when the films were split between those two venues. And festival-goers with no transportation were forced to stay put and hopefully be able to view the alternate screening times of their desired films.

I'm not sure when the change happened in film festivals where it was no longer about pushing independent filmmakers who created original work but rather promoting and premiering Hollywood films that already had distribution. Part of the allure of attending a festival is the chance to see work that you may never have the opportunity to see projected in a dark theater. Reasons being that they were perhaps not Hollywood enough, would never be Hollywood enough, or that Hollywood just wasn't ready for them. The makers of such films are also able to show their art to a large uninfluenced audience for the first time. An added bonus would be a company wanting to distribute their film to the masses.

This year at the Festival, the Opening Night and Closing Night films were Hollywood films under the guise of "independent" (Even the Centerpiece Premiere already received distribution while at Sundance). But all three films opened either within the run of the festival or only weeks after the festival's end. So is the festival community catering to “big picture making” instead of seeking the promotion of truly independent artists? Perhaps this is the way it has always been but I just never really noticed before. Although on the last day of the festival I found myself skipping the closing Gala film (Little Miss Sunshine) to see an Italian independent documentary. I knew for a fact that in two weeks time I would be able to purchase a ticket at any theatre to see the film at a time that fit comfortably within my schedule.

Unfortunately this year's choices in the real independent films also lacked that certain luster that moviegoers are seeking. I found myself longing to know what truly drove the characters because there seemed to be no definitive reason to why the movie was even happening. Analog Days (dir. Mike Ott) was a perfect example of that. A hipster's version of Dazed and Confused, but the film grazed upon the following topics: racism, terrorism, the extreme left and right of American politics, art school, college days, young adult angst, and the list continues. All great possible stories but none of which were ever developed. For me, the highlight of the festival was Chalk, directed by Mike Akel—by far the best in the Narrative Competition. The film had heart, humor, and a great story.

Perhaps it was just an off year in picking films for the Los Angeles Film Festival. Or maybe I'm not speaking the language of the up-an coming films. But if there is one thing that should remain the same i that film festivals should give well-written, well-executed, original films the opportunity to be seen by over 60,000 festival devotees—instead of catering to the premiere of Hollywood's big name films.

--Jennifer