Can anyone recommend really good books about films and cinema? (i.e. film theory, the technical aspects, editing, cinematography, screenwriting, great directors etc.)
Thanks a lot.
The Film Sense (by Sergei Eisenstein).
On Directing Film (David Mamet)
Truffaut/Hitchock (Truffaut)
On the purely technical side, Cinematography and Film Lighting (both by Kris Malkiewicz (sp?) ).
The Hitchcock-interview by Truffaut is really great.
I haven't read the one by Eisenstein...sounds interesting. I think Tarkovsky has also written something ("The Sealed Time" or so?) . Does anyone know Gilles Deleuze's books about film philosophy?
Story: Substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting by Robert McKee (yeah its the guy in Adaptation) is the screenwriting bible, so says my professor.
The faber & faber series of directors: Scorsese On Scorsese, Hitchcock On Hitchcock, Lynch On Lynch, etc.
Cinema Of Loneliness - Robert Philip Kolker
Rebel Without A Crew - Robert Rodriguez
Spike, Mike, Slackers and Dykes - John Pierson
I read "Hello! He Lied:True Strories from the Hollywood Trenches"
it is about Lynda Obst (sp?) the woman who produced the fisher king and sleepless in seattle. It was moderatley amusing but not informative or interesting enough to recommend.
I just bought "directing motion pictures" by terence st john marner and I really like it.
I'm about to read "Film directing shot by shot" by Steven D. Katz. Looks rather interesting...
Quote from: cbrad4dStory: Substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting by Robert McKee (yeah its the guy in Adaptation) is the screenwriting bible, so says my professor.
It's great. I took his seminar. A must for any screenwriter
As to the Katz book, I don't really like it. It made me all self conscious about the line, proper set-ups, etc. I feel it's outdated. It took me a year to forget it and just shoot my own way.
Quote from: chriskelvinI'm about to read "Film directing shot by shot" by Steven D. Katz. Looks rather interesting...
I have this book... it was our textbook in our Storyboarding class.
More of a guide to the visual aspect of direction (composition)... pretty good book... still haven't read it cover to cover yet.
If "books about film" isn't exclusive to just books about filmmaking, then these are the books about film that I've found most engaging, informative, and inspiring:
-For Keeps by Pauline Kael
-The American Cinema by Andrew Sarris
-The Devil's Candy by Julie Salomon
-Making Movies by Sidney Lumet
-Shoot to Kill by Christine Vachon
-Notes on Cinematography by Robert Bresson
-The sections on Godard, Persona, and "Theatre and Film" in Styles of Radical Will by Susan Sontag, as well as all her film essays (from Robert Bresson to sci-fi disaster movies) in Against Interpretation.
I have an autographed copy of Roger Ebert's Book of Film
"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," I forget the author, but I know that they just turned the book into a documentary that's supposed to pretty good.
I second that... Biskind's book is wonderful. I can't wait for the documentary... A Decade Under the Influence, is it??
Peter Biskind
...and it's my fav film book ever. I read it at least once a year.
I sense a similar distaste for Spielberg between you and I, Cecil... if the revealing bits about Spielberg have anything to do with your devotion to Biskind's great book.
I'm not Cecil, but you're right, I hate Spielberg. The book doesn't so much rip him as shows how his films brought about the downfall of the last great age of American filmmaking. But we're on a comeback. Of course, in 5 years, M Knight Shyalaman (I can't spell his name) will ruin this wave.
That book helped me discover Schrader, Bogdanovich, Freidkin, and others. I am indebted to it for eternity.
Robert Rodriguez's book and Lloyd Kauffman's book.
I don't remember what they're called. :(
That's right... you're SoNowThen. Which is a better reference than Cecil Demented, though not as cinema-focused...
Quote from: godardianThat's right... you're SoNowThen. Which is a better reference than Cecil Demented, though not as cinema-focused...
hey hey hey, what the hells going on here?
i hate spielberg too, btw
The anti-spielberg sentiment is such a stuck-up film snob attitude.
I would call myself his biggest fan by any means (never even seen Schindlers List).
Bogdanovich... Godard... fantastic filmmakers... but you can like them AND the money raking directors as well.
and the idea that Spielberg "ruined" American filmmaking is ridiculous... Jaws started the summer movie... if it hadn't, something else would... America sees what they want to see, it's no one filmmakers fault.
-and in this I'm not calling you anti-bergs snobs... don't get me wrong (especially Cecil)... just expressing my distaste for the snobbery.
i just dont like most of his films. it doesnt have anything to do with popularity or mainstream or money
I feel the same way. Brian de Palma found his way into the (very) mainstream, yet he still manages to do work that doesn't feel so ingratiating. That's what I don't like about Spielberg; his movies all feel like big pats on the head and chucks under the chin, he LOVES test-screening, and he can't stand the idea of anyone not liking him; it's as irritating from him as it is from any benign, well-meaning, totally, hopelessly clueless elder family member.
I just hope I didn't hurt any veterans' feelings by laughing out loud at the flag-waving-in-the-breeze image in that load of malarkey Saving Private Ryan. If I were a veteran, I would've been angry, but since I'm not, I could see it objectively as the feel-good Cliffs note it was and just laugh it off.
I also really like the Lord of the Rings films. I'm not a snob, honestly. I just feel so much desperation from Spielberg. It's like Michael Jackson syndrome; when every child in the world likes you, you start creating for simple little children, and your work loses any perspective.
He's not nearly the terrible director George Lucas is, though. I felt sorry for Marcia Lucas in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, having to edit Taxi Driver and Star Wars simultaneously. In that scenario, which director would you rather be married to, especially if you're going to take the leap of being honest about your opinions with your spouse? Marcia 'n Amy 'n George 'n Steven... it's like in those cases, the girls had to be the brains of the whole family until they just couldn't take it anymore.
Which is not to suggest, by the way, that children are as simple as Spielberg and much of the biz seems to think they are.
Quote from: godardianThat's what I don't like about Spielberg; his movies all feel like big pats on the head and chucks under the chin, he LOVES test-screening.
Quote from: MacGuffin, in another thread,Spielberg Blasts Test Screening Practice
Hollywood heavyweight Steven Spielberg has slated the age-old practice of test-screening new movies - claiming they are no help to directors. The Minority Report filmmaker argues that, in his experience, such events have been of no assistance and they can even lead movie bosses to make the wrong decisions in editing films. He says, "I stopped testing six years before the internet was invented. I just found that the test screenings for Hook, Always, The Color Purple and Empire Of The Sun didn't teach me anything. In fact, it got me to cut things out to please the audience that I wouldn't normally cut out. An audience might respond negatively on a Wednesday night, so you'd make all these changes, but you could take that same film and show it to a different audience on the following Friday and get a positive reaction. To make an assumption that 400 people on a Wednesday night can tell you where you've gone right and where you've gone off, is not representative of how your film will be perceived across America."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: godardianI just hope I didn't hurt any veterans' feelings by laughing out loud at the flag-waving-in-the-breeze image in that load of malarkey Schindler's List. If I were a veteran, I would've been angry, but since I'm not, I could see it objectively as the feel-good Cliffs note it was and just laugh it off.
Don't you mean "Saving Private Ryan"?
...yes. :oops:
Also, according to the inside dirt (from Julie Salomon's The Devil's Candy), Spielberg does (or did) think of the test-screening process as some sort of sacred bond between himself and his clammily sought-after audience... must've changed his mind somewhere along the way. The films still feel tailor-made for the practice, though.
Quote from: RegularKarateThe anti-spielberg sentiment is such a stuck-up film snob attitude.
I would call myself his biggest fan by any means (never even seen Schindlers List).
Bogdanovich... Godard... fantastic filmmakers... but you can like them AND the money raking directors as well.
and the idea that Spielberg "ruined" American filmmaking is ridiculous... Jaws started the summer movie... if it hadn't, something else would... America sees what they want to see, it's no one filmmakers fault.
-and in this I'm not calling you anti-bergs snobs... don't get me wrong (especially Cecil)... just expressing my distaste for the snobbery.
Oh, I do like some big money directors. Zemekis (sp) -- I love the Back To The Future trilogy, Reitman -- Ghostbusters will forever be in my top ten, Harold Ramis, etc...
It's just that, even when I was a kid, I always hated Spielberg movies (Jaws excepted). I agree totally with Godardian about how he seems like he's trying soooo hard to be loved. The Michael Jackson comparison was brilliant. I totally believe his "describe a movie in 20 words of less" and "put everything on the huge opening weekend" is hurting filmmaking in the States.
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about books on film? I have one:
How to Read a Film by James Monaco
Bye.
Out of Godardian's argument against the validity of Speilberg as a director, it was only with this did I find any hint of an argument that was objective in looking to the quality of his films: "....you start creating for simple little children, and your work loses any perspective." Now, was this backed up with examples? Flag waving in a movie doesn't seem to me to be any judge of quality solely, as said about Saving Private Ryan. I really couldn't buy the rest of his argument at all because so many directors who really make very good worthwhile films could be spoken of that way. Too much generalizing on what someone may disagree with of the Hollywood system. I don't mind words against Speilberg, but not explaining yourself and stepping up to the bat is certain death in my eyes. And with that, I don't see how liking Lords of the Rings doesn't make someone a snob. Many people who hate commercially aimed movies like Lord of the Rings ones for the sole purpose that characters they loved in the books are being shown on the big screen. Again, why does Lord of the Rings deserve praise when put into comparison against a Speilberg film? Explanations go a long way and I always try to do it and to sadly disagree with many people here, it is the only way not to be pretensious.
~rougerum
I just thought that Spielberg's films come across as mediocre and cheesy, and I (maybe presumptuously, but I don't think I'm totally wrong here) think it's because he's trying so damn hard to be liked, his films suffer badly for it. I guess I can't really explain it that much better than that...
...the flag-waving was just the most egregious example of what I associate with Spielberg's work.
And I actually don't care about J.R.R. Tolkien or The Lord of the Rings books. I just think they're well made movies, and minus the really blandly sentimental stuff you get from Spielberg most of the time.
All in my own opinion, of course. I understand many legitimate film-lovers find something of worth in Spielberg. I am not one of them, for the reasons mentioned above.
Quote from: godardianI feel the same way. Brian de Palma found his way into the (very) mainstream, yet he still manages to do work that doesn't feel so ingratiating. That's what I don't like about Spielberg; his movies all feel like big pats on the head and chucks under the chin, he LOVES test-screening, and he can't stand the idea of anyone not liking him; it's as irritating from him as it is from any benign, well-meaning, totally, hopelessly clueless elder family member.
I just hope I didn't hurt any veterans' feelings by laughing out loud at the flag-waving-in-the-breeze image in that load of malarkey Saving Private Ryan. If I were a veteran, I would've been angry, but since I'm not, I could see it objectively as the feel-good Cliffs note it was and just laugh it off.
I also really like the Lord of the Rings films. I'm not a snob, honestly. I just feel so much desperation from Spielberg. It's like Michael Jackson syndrome; when every child in the world likes you, you start creating for simple little children, and your work loses any perspective.
He's not nearly the terrible director George Lucas is, though. I felt sorry for Marcia Lucas in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, having to edit Taxi Driver and Star Wars simultaneously. In that scenario, which director would you rather be married to, especially if you're going to take the leap of being honest about your opinions with your spouse? Marcia 'n Amy 'n George 'n Steven... it's like in those cases, the girls had to be the brains of the whole family until they just couldn't take it anymore.[/quote
Ouch, my friend. To call Saving Private Ryan a load of malarkey is....well, it's unfair. Sure, it is operating on the slightly overused young soldier in war premise, but jesus christ man, how could you not be impressed by the beach landing sequence?!?!? I hated AI, but besides that, I'm quite a big fan of Spielberg. Sorry, hombre. :lol:
Quote from: SHAFTRI have an autographed copy of Roger Ebert's Book of Film
Yes, but did you
read it?
Yeah, I tend to agree with many of Ebert's opinions (except for the frequent ghastly head-scratchers like his moronic, pseudochivalrous take on Blue Velvet), but I think he's a terrible writer. No fun at all to read his plodding, simplistic, half-literate plot summaries and lame epiphanies. He's just a personality, not a writer.
So I just bought the book below. It's amazing- a really big, pretty coffee-table book with tons of photos and really great, in-depth, expert text. Covers anyone you'd care to think of- Bergman, Antonion, Godard, and pretty much the whole Criterion Collection.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0810943859.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=d4fb2e651e8930a77c1154334ce1e1e2bd6c64ee)
I got it on the remainders table for $29.98, marked down from $65. I was gonna post a link, but it looks like they're still charging full price for Internet buyers. It looks to be a great, essential book.
Quote from: godardianSo I just bought the book below. It's amazing- a really big, pretty coffee-table book with tons of photos and really great, in-depth, expert text. Covers anyone you'd care to think of- Bergman, Antonion, Godard, and pretty much the whole Criterion Collection. I got it on the remainders table for $29.98, marked down from $65. I was gonna post a link, but it looks like they're still charging full price for Internet buyers. It looks to be a great, essential book.
:shock: you have activated my happy consumer subroutines
Moviemakers' Master Class: Private Lessons from the World's Foremost Directors by Laurent Tirard [LINK (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/057121102X/qid=1071110891//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0762361-7884107?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)]
Sight Sound Motion: Applied Media Aesthetics by Herbert Zettl. Not sure if it's in print, but worth reading.
Katz's Film Encyclopedia -- an indispensible reference book.
Kubrick by Michel Ciment
Schrader on Schrader
Quote from: soixanteSight Sound Motion: Applied Media Aesthetics by Herbert Zettl. Not sure if it's in print, but worth reading.
Katz's Film Encyclopedia -- an indispensible reference book.
Kubrick by Michel Ciment
Schrader on Schrader
The last two are great.
That first one sound really interesting. Can you elaborate a little bit on some of the ideas in it or some of the things it covers?
Quote from: Kev HoffmanQuote from: SHAFTRI have an autographed copy of Roger Ebert's Book of Film
Yes, but did you read it?
half of it, than school started.
Sight Sound Motion was written in 1973, and I believe it has been updated. Some examples of Chapter headings -- "The First Aesthetic Field: Light," "Structuring the First Aesthetic Field: Lighting," "Structuring Color: Functions and Composition," "Structuring the Two-Dimensional Field: Interplay of Dynamic Vectors," "The Three-Dimensional Field: Depth and Volume," "Structuring the Three-Dimensional Field: Building Screen Volume," "The Four-Dimensional Field: Time and Motion," etc.
There is a great book called "Scorsese On Scorsese", but I'm not sure if its still in print. The section on "The Last Temptation of Christ" is especially good.
Quote from: The IdiotThere is a great book called "Scorsese On Scorsese", but I'm not sure if its still in print.
It's still in print. In fact, I just got the Revised Edition that was released only two months ago:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0571220029.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=3a2a93ce203a44a56281ca534633187b6d15d789)
Quote from: The IdiotThere is a great book called "Scorsese On Scorsese", but I'm not sure if its still in print. The section on "The Last Temptation of Christ" is especially good.
Yes, I have that book. I personally found the sections on the "failures" or really difficult experiences-
New York, New York,
King of Comedy- to be the most interesting and revealing.
QuoteIt's still in print. In fact, I just got the Revised Edition that was released only two months ago:
Wow, a revised edition. Is it very different from the original?
QuoteYes, I have that book. I personally found the sections on the "failures" or really difficult experiences- New York, New York, King of Comedy- to be the most interesting and revealing.
Those sections were also very enjoyable.
I have the old one, didn't know there was a revised one... is it up to and including Gangs of NY?
for christmas i received
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taschen.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F190%2Fms_kubrick.jpg&hash=211e4f76aa5830654eaefb8fd768be08350cc90d)
taschen books kick asssss
Quote from: godardianI have the old one, didn't know there was a revised one... is it up to and including Gangs of NY?
Chapter 10 is Bringing Out the Dead and My Voyage to Italy
Chapter 11 is Gangs of New York - New Projects
At the end of Chapter 11:
As this edition goes to press, The Aviator is beginning production, filming in Canada and California, and plans are continuing for documentaries in which Scorsese will offer personal explorations of British and Russian cinema, as well as a documentary profile on Bob Dylan.[/i]
:-D
I look forward to it.
Biskind Goes Inside Sundance, Miramax, and Independent Film with New Book, "Down and Dirty Pictures"
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiewire.com%2Fbiz%2Fphotos%2Fbiz_040106biskind.jpg&hash=caffe847f5fe578bb47e3872c502051b98444f50)
Independent film's insiders are buzzing about Peter Biskind's new book, a must-read account of the '90s independent film scene, entitled "Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance and the Rise of Independent Film." Yet, few have read the 544-page book, which will go on sale widely today. Publishers Simon & Schuster have successfully kept the anticipated title under wraps and they held the book back from the media until yesterday. Many of the book's VIP subjects, reached Monday in New York, had yet to receive their copies. Resourceful readers, however, found that a Barnes & Noble on Manhattan's Upper West Side jumped the gun and began selling copies over the weekend.
Undoubtedly the most anticipated book about off-Hollywood film since John Pierson's "Spike, Mike, Slackers and Dykes," Biskind's insider account is considered by the author to be a sort of sequel to his 1998 book, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'n' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood," which looked at '70s filmmaking.
"Life in the indie world can be nasty, brutish, and short," Biskind writes on page one of "Down and Dirty Pictures." "It was once said, if Hollywood is like the Mafia, indies are like the Russian mob... With less at stake, fewer spoils, little food and water, the fighting is all the more ferocious, and when times are tough, the rats (let's be nice -- the mice) feed on one another. And because there's no place to run, there's neither respite nor recourse. People get away with even worse behavior than they do in Hollywood."
And so, Biskind sets about detailing that bad behavior, much of it attributed to Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. Indeed, the book could have just as easily been titled, "The Rise of Miramax and the Death of Independent Film." Much of the book is a history of Miramax, from the Weinstein brothers' early days in Buffalo, through their move to New York City and into the beginnings of the company, which was named after their parents Miriam and Max. The rise of the company, intercut with the evolution of the Sundance Film Festival, as well as the movements of a group of stalwarts within New York's film community, frames Biskind's account of the 90s and the explosion of independent film.
"As 'Project Greenlight' has taught us, when budgets are low and shooting schedules short, the drama behind the camera is as compelling as the drama in front of the camera," Biskind writes in the book, "That drama is often about deals, getting the picture financed before it is shot and into theaters afterward."
Biskind interviewed Harvey Weinstein on numerous occasions and also details a meeting in which Weinstein tried to convince the author to drop the book and take up a different passion project, for the Miramax Books imprint. Biskind's depiction of Weinstein is true to other portrayals of the exec, but this time with even greater detail.
Calling Harvey Weinstein "a preternaturally charming man who is nevertheless a roiling cauldron of insecurities, in which self-love and self-hatred contend like two demons, equal in strength, canniness and resolve," Biskind also highlights Weinstein's love of movies and his sense of humor. Yet, it's Biskind's accounts of Weinstein's numerous run-ins with staffers, filmmakers, actors, competing buyers, and the media that will have people buzzing at Sundance Film Festival cocktail parties next week.
"I struggled a lot over the issue of Miramax's contributions," Biskind told indieWIRE late Monday. "It didn't surprise me... I felt that they had in fact made a very important contribution." Biskind underscores the achievements of the company and throughout notes that, for better or worse, the company changed the way independent films were released.
A one-time doc filmmaker who was active in the indie film community in the 60s, Biskind later edited American Film Magazine and he is a former executive editor of Premiere Magazine. He is also a contributor to Vanity Fair (the magazine will offer excerpts of Biskind's new book in its February edition, which will be released later this week).
The idea for "Down and Dirty Pictures" came to Biskind while he was on the road promoting "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." "I found myself saying that the independent scene carried the torch of the 70s, in the 90s," Biskind told indieWIRE. Yet, those familiar with Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" will notice a different approach to this decade. It is not about the films, it is about the business of the movies, that's the story that, according to Biskind, defined the 90s. "This is a distribution and marketing story," he said in the conversation with indieWIRE.
The decade began with some low-budget films from unproven filmmakers getting attention at Sundance. Weinstein in particular seized the moment with movies like "sex, lies and videotape" and "Clerks," marketing the projects aggressively and making a name for his company and the filmmakers. Kevin Smith, Richard Linklater, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, David O'Russell and more inspired other filmmakers who created a steady pipeline of movies. Sundance and Miramax ignited a frenzied period in which first-timers sought stardom from their small movies and then Hollywood took notice, setting the stage for a round of corporate involvement in independent film that continues today. Its yielded a faction of the film community that indieWIRE calls "Indiewood."
Countless tales from interviews with an array of insiders offer first-hand accounts. Biskind's story picks up at the intersection of Miramax and Sundance (he calls them the "twin towers of the indie world"), when in 1989, Soderbergh debuted his "sex, lies" at the festival and Harvey Weinstein came calling.
Sundance festival founder Robert Redford takes quite a few blows in "Dirty Pictures," as does the event itself. In fact, Biskind ties the creation of the Sundance Institute to a land development project by the founder, saying that Redford "hoped to turn a white elephant into an arts colony that at best might enhance the value of the for-profit ski resort and at worst could do a whole lot of good, it was a brilliant stroke, allowing Redford to kill a multiplicity of birds with one not-for-profit stone."
Biskind details organizational strife within the Institute, criticizing Redford for his management style, and offers a stinging critique of the organization. "Judged by one of its original, loftier goals, an institute to help outsiders, Sundance has failed. Women, Native Americans, African-Americans and the poor still don't have equal access to the camera."
Reached yesterday, Biskind clarified, "In terms of what they started out to do they failed... but I think it turned into something else which is still valuable." Continuing he added, "I think that [Sundance], for the all the problems, is extremely valuable -- you'd have to be an idiot not to acknowledge that." Writing in the book he concludes, "A lot of that good work is undone by the frenzy of the festival."
The worst thing that you can say about Sundance, Biskind charges, is underscored by a comment offered by Focus Features co-president James Schamus near the end of "Down and Dirty Pictures." That is, the fact that the festival has bungled the definition of what it means to be an auteur, a term associated with many of the filmmakers at the heart of Biskind's book about the 70s.
"The psychology of the American independent has supplanted the auteur psychology," Schamus told Biskind, "There's no question to me that Sundance, as a culture, has dangerously infantilized auteurism, because the reigning assumption is that by the time you're seventeen or eighteen years old, you're pretty much an auteur if you're going to be an auteur, and if you're not, you're not. If you'd put that on someone like Coppola, I don't think he'd ever have been Coppola. What could that guy have said at the age of twenty? Your first independent film has gotta be your film, your voice. So now the pressure is really on from the time you're out of diapers to be an artist. It's become a grim kind of joke."
Biskind's five-plus page "Cast of Characters" lists the names and credits of the people who make frequent appearances in the book. On the executive side, a recurring list of those included were shuffling among companies in the 80s and 90s, including Michael Barker, Tom Bernard, Eamonn Bowles, Ira Deutchman, David Dinerstein, Scott Greenstein, David Linde, Jeff Lipsky, Amir Malin, Liz Manne, Chris McGurk, and Bingham Ray. Filmmakers interviewed include Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and writer/actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Sundance's Redford is quoted from an interview in 1990, but did not participate in the book.
In a decade marked by intense competition, many of the altercations and intrigue are already the stuff of independent film legend: Weinstein's nickname of "Harvey Scissorhands," his infamous fight at Mercato restaurant in Park City over the rights to "Shine," Bigham Ray's battles with Amir Malin and Scott Greenstein, Weinstein physically attacking a journalist at a Manhattan party or verbally assaulting "Frida" director Julie Taymor in the lobby of a movie theater, and the Hollywood studio chiefs cracking down on specialty division heads over last year's screener ban meetings. Yet, with this insightful history of the decade, Biskind offers these stories for the record and in greater detail.
Battles for movies are a familiar backdrop for the numerous skirmishes that erupt throughout the book, either at Cannes, Sundance, or Toronto (but mostly at Sundance). Among the hilarious episodes is the USA Films trio of Bingham Ray, John Schmidt and Scott Greenstein competing, or so they think, with Harvey Weinstein for the rights to Robert Duvall's "The Apostle." The book takes readers on a chase down hotel hallways en route to the deal.
Notably, the book also goes inside the $100 million marriage of convenience between Disney and Miramax. Noting that with the deal Disney in fact sought to alter the landscape of the independent film business.
"We said... 'we can increase their revenues by 30, 40 percent, dramatically improve their bottom line," Chris McGurk, then a Disney exec, told Biskind, "This gives them a huge advantage in the marketplace, maybe there's something to this.'" Continuing he added, "We laid out on a piece of paper how we would help Miramax take over the independent world and kill everybody. The big issue was whether these two guys could work with us, work within the system."
Indeed Miramax would eventually dominate the specialty film business, with the security of corporate parent Disney backing it up all the way. Later, the studio ties would be tested and what Biskind calls the "illusion of independence" would be underscored, most clearly by the recent MPAA screener ban. "When push came to shove," Biskind writes, "They were unable to act independently of their studio parents."
Biskind's story wraps in November, just before a group of independent film producers won a court order to halt the screener ban, with Weinstein's testimony in the case cited as a key part of their victory.
"Sundance and Miramax are the yin and yang of the indie universe, the high road and the low, the sun and the moon, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader," writes Biskind in "Down and Dirty Pictures, "But the two had more in common than appeared at first blush. Sundance never would be able to shed its baleful twin, and eventually it would go over to the dark side. That may or may not have been a good thing, but either way, it is the story of this decade."
[Peter Biskind will visit numerous bookstores over the next two months to discuss his new book, including New York's Barnes & Noble Astor Place on January 20th, Los Angeles' Book Soup on February 2nd, San Francisco's A Clean Well Lighted Place for Books on February 6th, and Boston's Brattle Theater on February 24th.]
thats funny, because i just got Easy Riders... for xmas and am finally reading through that, which i love. and earlier today i read a little about this one and noticed it was from the same author. i will probably go out tomorrow to buy this.
Quote from: themodernage02thats funny, because i just got Easy Riders... for xmas and am finally reading through that, which i love. and earlier today i read a little about this one and noticed it was from the same author. i will probably go out tomorrow to buy this.
Yeah, me too... god, I'm so broke from Xmax shopping, might as well just go for it, right?
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls is one of my favorite film reads ever, ever, ever. Hope this one is as revealing/juicy/wide-ranging.
Blue Movie by Terry Southern. An erotic novel dedicated to Stanley K. from the guy who co-wrote Dr. Strangeglove.
so i finished Easy Riders yesterday. goddamn, i couldn't put it down, what a great read. its amazing to me that just about everyone who is revered from the seventies that the book focuses on was either
A. crazy
or
B. an asshole
EVERYBODY! insane, they all went crazy with power and just like in boogie nights as soon as the seventies came to an end, everything just fell apart for these guys. their whole fucking worlds came crashing down, their movies bombed and sucked, their relationships were all shot with friends and wives, and they were all hooked on drugs and booze. tarantino said of the book "[Your] book was so goddamn well written, I was like, I don't want to know these things about these people, my heroes, but then I made the mistake of leaving it by my bedside table, and it was like a bag of pot, with me saying I'm not gonna smoke. But I was insatiable." thats pretty much how it is, (except that I dont smoke pot), but you get the idea.
i had gone out earlier in the week to pick up Down And Dirty, but they hadnt gotten in their shipment yet. today i went back and they had one copy left. i cant WAIT to read this one.
Just about anyone everywhere ever is either crazy or an asshole.
I've re-read Easy Riders And Raging Bulls so many times since I got it in 99, you have no idea. It just lays around, and I read snippets almost everyday. First like a fable, then ending like a cautionary tale...
needless to say, I will be checking out this new book.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiewire.com%2Fbiz%2Fphotos%2Fbiz_040106biskind.jpg&hash=caffe847f5fe578bb47e3872c502051b98444f50)
just finished this book. didnt like it as much as Easy Riders, but it was still very interesting. i wish it had focused more on how these movies actually got made and more on the directors, and less on harvey fucking weinstein and how they were distributed. there were hundreds of pages filled with harvey berating people and being an awful human being, and i wish they had spent less time on that and more on qt talking making Pulp Fiction or whatever. harvey weinstein seems like the worst human being i can imagine. just reading about what he's done to these filmmakers makes me feel like i've been yelled at. godardian, have you gotten to the part where he makes todd haynes cry yet? and sonowthen gotten to the gangs mess with scorsese?
Finished it.
Thing was, Mod, it was supposed to be about Miramax, and not so much about the directors. I liked it, because I learned who's who to trust in Hollywood.
Anyway, Biskind's wrong when he says the draft riots didn't work in Gangs. Flawed it is, and the romantic shit was tacked on by Harvey, yes, but he's wrong about all the other stuff.
The scariest thing about this story is, that you can make a great film, then they can bury it, change it, or sell the hell out of it and keep ALL the money, and you can't do a damn thing about it.
well in Easy Riders, they focused on both the studios putting out the movies AND the directors struggles in making them. this being the 'sequel' i had hoped for a similar format spending the most time on the 'important' directors in the rise of indie film in the 90s. unfortunately it was a pretty scathing chronicle of miramax and their horrible horrible methods.
also one of the things that was so interesting about the book is how blurred the indies have become with the studios. even at the golden globes the big epic romance 'cold mountain' is a miramax movie and smaller character piece 'mystic river' is a WB movie! i had no idea so many indies were just divisions of the studios.
mod-age, you might wanna try this one if you haven't already:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fart.half.ebay.com%2Fprod%2F168228.jpg&hash=23cb2f1eb2f4f0374a4d2a3184598f22d01997a9)
no i havent. i read in the into that this book would be staying away from ground covered by that one, but i forgot my mental note to get that one next. i'll probably wait a while since i'm broke right now and i've still got my Evil Dead Companion from xmas to read (at your recommendation).
I always got that the 70's were supposed to be the "directors" era, then the (unwritten book) 80's were the "producers" era, and I guess the 90's were the company era. He did touch on the big name producers in Easy Riders, like Evans, but it was completely director heavy (I included BBS in the director slot, because of the Rafelson connection). And of course if he did a book on the 80's (which he won't, because who the fuck wants to remember them?), it'd be on Bruckheimer and Simpson mainly. So under the circumstances, I think it was the right choice for this book.
Had anyone heard of Bingham Ray and Jeff Lipsky before this? They sound like good guys, people who might get your movie made...
Oh also, did anybody else find his mentions of PTA to be a little dismissive? I think he called Magnolia "overblown but not uninteresting". How grudging is that!! Some one the movies he heaped praise on were suspect, and yet he glides by Magnolia???
yeah but he did keep menioning 'the andersons' everytime a good new filmmakers were being brought up.
Seemingly out of obligation.
Quote from: themodernage02
just finished this book. didnt like it as much as Easy Riders, but it was still very interesting. i wish it had focused more on how these movies actually got made and more on the directors, and less on harvey fucking weinstein and how they were distributed. there were hundreds of pages filled with harvey berating people and being an awful human being, and i wish they had spent less time on that and more on qt talking making Pulp Fiction or whatever. harvey weinstein seems like the worst human being i can imagine. just reading about what he's done to these filmmakers makes me feel like i've been yelled at. godardian, have you gotten to the part where he makes todd haynes cry yet? and sonowthen gotten to the gangs mess with scorsese?
I just finished this book last night. I'll finally have my free time back (Biskind's books are soooo addictive). I already knew most of the Haynes story from the Portland grapevine (I lived/wrote there when it was going on), but it was cool to read some of the Vachon war-stories; her book is excellent, too:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0380798549.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=d0b485438c50e1fd02a3a7308cbbd2c6d9ea2be1)
I also already knew most of the weinstein shit, as I'm friends with a local publicist who dealt with Miramax.
Modage, I think the focus of the book is only a symptom of the huge difference between film in the 70s and film in the 90s; if it's disappointing that the book is more about the personalities of the producers/distributors, it's only as disappointing as the fact that that's what film(making) was mostly about in the 90s. I think the book is very critical of that, as well it should be, but it can't alter the facts to make for more of a focus on what we might've been more interested in reading about.
One thing I did notice: They didn't go into any of the Rysher shit that PTA went through. In fact, though i would've loved to have read the inside stuff on the PTA films of the era, I felt really good for him that he wasn't included in a lot of the wrenching rollercoastering of the biz. He was either very lucky, preternaturally wise in his business decisions, or a combination of both...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0375413553.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=fe207873e0c8bbde61c5603c449cbf9918fbdb80)
BOOK STABS HOLLYWOOD; ESZTERHAS TELLS ALL
PARAMOUNT Studio head Sherry Lansing was so afraid of being attacked for nepotism involving her husband, director Billy Friedkin, that she asked screenwriter Joe Eszterhas to lie for her.
That’s the allegation contained in HOLLYWOOD ANIMAL, the 736-page memoir written by Eszterhas that is set to cause a serious TinselTown storm.
Publisher KNOPF has been holding the book close, and only the DRUDGE REPORT can crack the embargo.
Eszterhas claims Lansing asked him as “a favor” to tell the media that he wanted director Billy Friedkin, Lansing’s husband, to direct the movie JADE.
Eszterhas writes: “She was going to be criticized, Sherry said, for letting Billy direct Jade ... and she wanted me to say it was my idea for Billy to direct Jade, not hers. As I thought about it, Sherry said, ‘I’ll owe you a favor, honey.’ I smiled and simply said okay and Sherry said, ‘I love you, honey.’”
Earlier, Eszterhas writes, he told Lansing “Billy hasn’t had a hit in over 20 years, Sherry. There are people in town who think the only reason Billy still works is because he’s married to you.”
Eszterhas writes that Friedkin assured him in a meeting that he “wouldn’t change a comma of my script” and that in return, and as a favor to Lansing, Eszterhas spoke to the LOS ANGELES TIMES and on April 18th, 1994, that newspaper wrote: “Eszterhas, also the film’s executive producer, maintains that Friedkin had long been his first choice to direct JADE.”
During the production of the movie, when Friedkin began changing Eszterhas’s script, the screenwriter wrote Friedkin an angry memo on October 31, 1994 which said:
“It is clear that you lied to me. The lie rankles, of course, not only on a creative level, but on a personal one. Considering the fact that the last time you had a hit movie was in the early 70s, you never would have gotten the chance to direct a script that was viewed as the hottest in town without my support... you needed my public support to avoid any charges of favoritism. You needed it and you got it. We even had a discussion outside Alice’s in Malibu one day about how, thanks to my quotes in the L.A. Times, we had put the issue to rest.”
When Eszterhas saw the film, he was so angry that he called Lansing. He writes in the memoir: “I called Sherry from the limo, screamed at her and told her she’d used me and her husband had used me to get a job... and had then lied to me about changing my script. I told Sherry I wanted my name off the movie and was going to tell the media how she’d asked me to say Billy was my idea to direct the script so it would seem like there was no nepotism involved.”
Eszterhas writes that Lansing said “You can’t do that, honey, please” and that he hung up on her.
According to Eszterhas, Lansing called his agent the next day and offered him a $4 million script for an unspecified new deal. Eszterhas took the deal and didn’t take his name off the movie. Nor did he reveal the agreement he had made with Lansing to shield her from criticism.
The allegations are just the the first licks of HOLLYWOOD ANIMAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A name-naming memoir
NEW YORK — Joe Eszterhas can write, and he proves it in the first pages of his memoir "Hollywood Animal" (Knopf) as he drops one scandalous, funny or outrageous grenade after another.
Speaking of "Showgirls" director Paul Verhoeven, he writes, "He said Sharon Stone couldn't act. I think he was lying about Sharon. I think he was still angry that Sharon wouldn't have sex with him while they were shooting 'Basic Instinct.' "
This is only the icing on the cake Eszterhas has baked — hundreds of people, from Sherry Lansing to Michael Ovitz to Bob Evans, will be riveted.
The book deals with a man leaving one longtime wife for another woman; struggling almost to the death with his father; celebrating sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll; and rising above his Hungarian immigrant childhood and all the machinations of nasty Hollywood.
This is down and dirty, not the laundered version of the movie biz, celebrity and fame that we are fed (and, yes, that some of us ladle out) most of the time. It resonates with truth. It's not just mean and cynical and lowdown, but has a heart and soul.
Hahaha, why is it that such mediocre writers like Eszterhas and Goldman feel the need to mouth off like they're God's gift to the written word?
Joe, get over yourself.
The Los Angeles Times's response to the Biskind book:
The indie eye
Independent film isn't dead. It's just suffering a bad case of inflated expectations. By Manohla Dargis
"Get me out of here!" The words slammed into my head as I slammed close my book. I had just finished reading Peter Biskind's astonishing claim that Miramax had "killed" the independent film movement of the 1990s "with success." If that was the case, I wondered, what was I doing at Sundance?
Bunkered in a condo, I was slogging through another Sundance Film Festival where, too embarrassed to be seen carting around Biskind's "Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film," I would return from my latest screening to read about the frenetic scene I had just escaped. A deal-oriented, personality-driven chronicle of low-budget American filmmaking set primarily during the 1990s, Biskind's book is, much like his previous exposé "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and Rock 'n' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood," packed with juicy incidents, bigger-than-life characters, copious author interviews and some questionable historical interpretations.
Couched in starkly Hobbesian terms — "life in the indie world can be nasty, brutish, and short," Biskind announces on the first page — the new book makes low-budget filmmaking sound like an especially vicious edition of "Survivor," in which the last man standing, checkbook in meaty hand, is named Harvey Weinstein. If the Miramax co-chairman looms large in Biskind's account, as a kind of rampaging monster leaving scores of damaged movies and egos in his wake — not to mention an entire film movement — my guess is that it's largely because distribution and production is pretty dull stuff. It is, after all, easier to sell a book about moguls behaving badly than to define independent filmmaking in the age of conglomerates; certainly it's easier to sell personalities than to parse how money flows from one pocket to the next.
One problem with Biskind's take is that it works only if you buy the canard that Miramax was an independent company even after 1993, the year it was bought by Disney, one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. (Biskind admits Miramax's independence was a fiction but nonetheless lavishes much of his attention on the company.) Given how important the independent stamp became to the movie industry during the 1990s — as a marker of quality, as a promise of difference and distinction — it's no surprise that everyone went along. As the hullabaloo over this week's Academy Award nominations makes clear, the story of the little indie that could remains irresistible — witness "Lost in Translation," which was partly financed by Focus International, which in turn is owned by Universal Pictures.
Indeed, Biskind's glum take on the independent film world only really works if you ignore those independents working without studio patronage — and if you keep your eyes shut. If you keep them open, as I did while watching more than 30 features at Sundance, you discover that independent film is rolling along pretty much the same bumpy way it has for the last decade. This year, along with a smattering of documentaries, the best evidence that reports of independent film's death were premature included John Curran's thorny drama about two married couples in their 30s, "We Don't Live Here Anymore," adapted by Larry Gross from a pair of Andre Dubus stories. And Jonathan Caouette's "Tarnation," an exuberantly personal work smeared with lipstick traces from the likes of David Lynch and avant-garde legend Jack Smith that recounts the filmmaker's life with and without his disturbed mother.
Two facets of the whole
I've written my share of cranky articles about the country's most important film festival, but either by design or default, Sundance continues to be the leading venue for American independents.
It's where I caught the world premiere of Todd Haynes' "Safe," a thrilling, eerily prescient work about toxic America that put Julianne Moore on the road to stardom. And where I saw Victor Nunez's "Ruby in Paradise," a heart-soaring film about an underprivileged young woman struggling to find herself (a favorite Sundance trope), and the last great evidence of just how good an actress Ashley Judd can be. It's also where I have seen tough, aesthetically uncompromising films such as Mary Harron's "American Psycho," Michael Almereyda's "Hamlet" (which, to its credit, Miramax picked up after Sundance), Todd Solondz's "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and Martin Bell's "American Heart."
None of this makes Sundance any more pleasurable. Good movie year or not — and this was a middling year — the festival invariably features an overabundance of mediocre work. Too many films hew to familiar Sundance templates — the family dysfunction confab, the "I'm on hiatus, get me an indie" flick, the premature-coming-of-age drama — that hit all the usual story notes and, for some ungodly reason, feature a lot of sensitive guitar strumming. Movies that, to paraphrase one friend, are Hollywood films without the glamour, art movies without the art. That's brutal, but Sundance's core problem is that there aren't enough good homegrown films produced in a given year to support a festival of this size. Which is why the festival's smartest move has been to dramatically increase its number of foreign-language selections.
But Sundance isn't the sum of American independent film any more than Miramax is. Rather, they're two pieces in the larger puzzle that is the contemporary movie industry. If the industry can be difficult to grasp these days, it's because our movies — once built on the factory floor from the ground up, much like granddad's Chrysler — are now created in a radically decentralized system. So while most of the major studios are part of enormous global conglomerates, filmmaking has become bewilderingly piecemeal, especially when it comes to financing. Killer Films, to take one example, which produced some of the most acclaimed and daring nonstudio films of the 1990s, including "Safe" and "Swoon," is now partly funded by John Wells Productions, which last year signed a reported $70-million production and development deal with Warner Bros.
That may not make Killer Films a studio company, but it may make it something less than fully independent. Still, because all filmmaking involves necessary degrees of dependence — whether on grants, family money, bank loans or production deals — the distinctions between independents and the studios sometimes seem more nominal than meaningful. As Biskind's repeated horror stories about Weinstein drive home, so-called independent producers can be as meddlesome and dumb as studio bean counters.
The indie film label may (still) signify freedom, innovation and even a smidgen of radicalism to many consumers and a large swathe of the media that should know better. But filmmakers tend to tell a different tale. Independent or not, making movies means that a very few become very rich, often at the expense of the less ruthless.
Luring the next generation
To an extent, the indie film frenzy of the last decade was symptomatic of a trend launched in the 1940s, when studios increasingly began to target specific audiences. In the 1950s, Hollywood discovered the youth market; it's been rediscovering it ever since, doing so in the late 1960s and again in the early 1990s. In indie film, the studios discovered a fountain of youth that appealed both to a new generation of consumers and to the media, which are desperate to capture that generation's business. When Disney, an old adept hand at seducing young audiences, bought Miramax it wasn't just buying a company, it was buying a coveted demographic. As media critic Robert W. McChesney notes, "Disney, more than any media giant, is the master at figuring out new synergistic ways to acquire, slice, dice and merchandise content."
By absorbing companies such as Miramax and tapping filmmakers such as Steven Soderbergh, who went from independent success with "sex, lies, and videotape" to even better mainstream studio hits such as "Traffic," the movie industry was in some ways just conducting business as usual. The central dialectic of the industry has always been between the status quo and "innovation," between giving audiences more of the same (hence genres and the star system) and something slightly new, vaguely different (from "Gone With the Wind" to "Cold Mountain"). And as long as there has been a motion picture industry, there has been a parallel stream of independent production companies and filmmakers from which the industry has regularly drawn new blood, either directly or by osmosis.
There were independent filmmakers before Miramax and there are still independent filmmakers, though not all are equally independent. But some myths die hard. That's particularly true in the media that gladly exploit the scrappy underdog angle — partly to snare younger consumers — and in the sub-industry that has sprung up around indie film. Nowhere is that sub-industry more visible than at Sundance, where an alphabet soup of corporate logos adorns the festival and fleets of support staff — lawyers who try to sell rights to distributors, publicists who try to bait media types like yours truly — accompany each entrant. At center stage, of course, are the all-important executives such as Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, who are in attendance to support their company's coming releases, while scouting the next "Thirteen," which Rice snapped up at last year's festival.
Last year at Sundance, five of the most-talked-about films were "Thirteen," "American Splendor," "The Station Agent," "All the Real Girls" and "Capturing the Friedmans," all of which were well received by critics and bought by studio specialty divisions and independent distributors. As of my deadline, these five films have grossed a combined $19,232,948 at the American box office. By contrast, Warner Bros.' putative comedy "Kangaroo Jack," which hit theaters the day after the 2003 Sundance opened, earned $21,895,483 in just its opening weekend. Far more people saw "Kangaroo Jack" than last year's big Sundance movies, although you wouldn't know that from the attention these films racked up in taste-making outlets such as the New York Times, which published a whopping 10 articles on "Capturing the Friedmans."
Despite the delirium that now characterizes the Sundance experience, most independent films — whether we're talking studio indies or real indies — exert a greater symbolic impact on the culture than an economic one. True, "Pulp Fiction" grossed more than $100 million in the United States. But it's likely that the film benefited Disney — which in 1994 became, with Quentin Tarantino's help, the first studio to gross a billion dollars at the U.S. box office — more than it did independent cinema. By contrast, movies such as "The Station Agent" and "All the Real Girls," which provide character-based, nominally offbeat (i.e., nongenre) stories to a limited number of filmgoers, can hope to do only a fraction of that business. Some independent film watchers might see such meager returns as proof that the movement is indeed dead, but I wonder if we're not looking at this through the wrong end of the glass.
Here's a thought: Maybe the American audience for character-based, nominally offbeat (i.e., nongenre) movies is fairly modest. When a movie dies an unceremoniously swift and unprofitable death at the box office, filmmakers often point an accusatory finger at the marketing and publicity. But bigger advertising campaigns, of the sort that Miramax has become famous for at awards time, cannot guarantee that the majority or even a large part of the moviegoing public really wants to watch small-scale, star-free, thoughtful, low-concept films about darkly unhappy dwarfs and grieving mothers, misanthropic jazz reviewers with dubious grooming, inarticulate young lovers who don't take their clothes off, out-of-control teenagers who don't take their clothes off and a freaky middle-class family torn apart by their own pathologies and multiple counts of child molestation charges.
That isn't cynical; it's the populist bottom line. In the end, the great fraud perpetuated during the independent film movement of the 1990s wasn't the work of either Miramax or Sundance alone. It was the work of everyone who tried to transform independent cinema into a brand called indie film, thereby insisting that even the most rarefied movie could — and, worse, should — have the audience appeal, the Academy Award-capacity and the box-office muscle of Hollywood.
Thinking like that doesn't just sell short some of our best filmmakers, including those like Jim Jarmusch, Todd Haynes, Paul Thomas Anderson and "Donnie Darko's" Richard Kelly, some of whom have enjoyed studio patronage but may never find mainstream success. It sells short the idea that movies are more than commodities and have the capacity to be a beautiful dream, a transporting experience — a place where art takes hold, ready or not.
Quote from: SoNowThenHahaha, why is it that such mediocre writers like Eszterhas and Goldman feel the need to mouth off like they're God's gift to the written word?
Joe, get over yourself.
This doesn't seem so much like "mouthing off" as it does good old-fashioned
Hollywood Babylon gossip. This actually sounds like the kind of trashy book it would be fun to read. Funny to see Joe Eszterhas doing a Kenneth Anger... maybe it's more like a Julia Phillips, actually.
Good article, Macguffin. I can never get enough of seeing
Safe acknowledged as the masterwork that it is.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F006039322X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=320b0204c55d7b702a957d7425365052ddcd18da)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0747563187.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=9193a9f36e4bb403bdc9d50ab199e2a1f07dc1ca)
Oohhhhhhh you got the godard book... I'm jealous.
mine comes in the mail next week
wooohooo!!!
Quote from: chuckhimselfo
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0747563187.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=9193a9f36e4bb403bdc9d50ab199e2a1f07dc1ca)
So I stop by University Bookstore (http://www.bookstore.washington.edu/ubs/main.taf?) here in Seattle yesterday to pick this up, and I can't find it and can't find it, even though their online inventory says it's in stock.
Problem is, chuckhimselfo's presumably European edition looks way prettier than what we get, and since I was looking for the picture above, I passed by this again and again before finally spotting it:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0374163782.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=229539eda27dbab85e33d1225c0cbe11a923ea20)
...to make things more confusing, it was in the "new releases" right alongside the Hitchcock book also mentioned by chuckhimselfo, which has an identical jacket.
hehe, yeah, i just found that about that earlier today. looks very promising. i read an article on Sight and Sound about it, says that it's the most researched biography ever written on Godard.
yeah, I was expecting a little more from Down and Dirty...
It was all about Miramax, split into two stories basically about Pulp Fiction and Good Will Hunting.
Notice how there wasn't any real stories about sex like the was almost every other page of Easy Riders? Maybe the people written about in the book still have something to lose. Or maybe it was a 70's thing.
I have always wanted to read Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. Of everything I have heard about it on this board, I had to get it. I haven't been able to put it down. Warren Beatty's ways with the ladies make for a hilarious read. I would almost bet that Carly Simon DID write the song "Your so Vain" about him. 8)
She wrote it about James Taylor.
I know somebody won the auction for who the song was about. I didn't hear who it was. James Taylor huh? Interesting. Would have been funny if it was Beatty.
The greatest book ever on the topic of cinema has to be 'Hitchcock' by Truffaut. A meeting of two cinematic masters, featuring days worth of interview transcripts. I want them to broadcast footage of the complete interview on BBC Four or some such channel.
i just read (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.writersstore.com%2Fimages%2Fbooks%2F1311b.jpg&hash=52e060fba7f70f1a2e06d3514062c2b42c271681) & (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.writersstore.com%2Fimages%2Fbooks%2F511b.jpg&hash=d3b58cedd34725bdd6f9723a7f2dbb55172dd563) while i went on vacation and they were both really good and really interesting. william goldman is pretty funny and it was interesting to read his sort of more open book after lumet's not wanting to make anyone look bad. but anyone wanting to write or direct (not me) should read the corresponding book. right now i'm getting started on Spike Mike Reloaded (finally), and then i have Adventures in Screen Trade in the mail next.
Joe Queenan's "Confessions of a Cineplex Heckler" is a really funny one with good negative insights into movie trends, too bad they were mostly about films in the 90s.
finished (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F1401359507.01._PE_PI_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=98d280d0bd42649dc0dd41b5ac6e753fadc7b0a6) last week. makes an interesting companion to Down and Dirty Pictures. together i think they helped to paint a decent picture of the indie film boom and how it came to be. i didnt realize the writer of the book (before i started reading) was someone who was writing from his EXPERIENCE getting these movies distributed and not from someone who was writing from a critical outsider pov (like biskind). so it was a little weird to hear so much about Rob Weiss (producer on Punkd!) and not more on Soderberg, Tarantino, etc. also with all the new additions the book is VERY kevin smith heavy although he is intersting to hear talk regardless of how you feel about his movies.
just finished (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0446391174.01._PE30_PIdp-schmooS%2CTopRight%2C7%2C-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.gif&hash=ebad003ad621b94c4ef6c8bb6847e6ba6684d348) and like its sequel Which Lie Did I Tell, it was funny and interesting and very readable. had no idea that the Presidents Men script tried to be re-written by Nora Ephron (that bitch!) and Woodward (or was it Bernstein), whatever. it was a little odd to have read the later book first and then to go back and read about his thoughts in 1982(ish). especially when he talks about the state of movies being the worst ever (post Heavens Gate) and all the disasters they've had to sit through. and how he's sure ET will win the best picture. but, good interesting stuff.
also, for anyone whose read Easy Riders and Down and Dirty Pictures, have you read (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0805065636.01._PE_PIdp-schmooS%2CTopRight%2C7%2C-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=b1609fc528413285648300fe2b4333973afc3af7) ? i'd never heard of it before but just ordered it because it sounds interesting as hell especially because i was just saying to my girlfriend i wish somebody (like Biskind) would write a book about EVERY DECADE, because when you get to the end of Riders/Bulls you want to find out more about what happens to these people and who comes up next, etc.
and even better is (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F1560255455.01._PE30_PI_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=ac8b6cbea6216c5819c175439bebf6f76c0625bf) Gods and Monsters : Movers, Shakers, and Other Casualties of the Hollywood Machine which comes out Nov. 9th! sounds great, but i cant believe hes got another book out so close on the heels of Down and Dirty which just came out earlier this year. arent these things supposed to take time? heres the description....
Peter Biskind authored two of the most talked about and read books of the last decade—Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock-'n'-Roll Generation Saved Hollywood and its bestselling sequel Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film. Gods and Monsters chronicles the cause and courses of Hollywood over the last three decades—the super freaks, lowlifes, charlatans and occasional geniuses who have left their bite mark on American culture, as refracted through the trajectory of Peter Biskind's career. The ghosts of McCarthyism and the blacklist haunt Gods and Monsters as do the casualties of the counterculture and the New Hollywood—the story of Sue Menges, the '70s "super-agent" whose career went mysteriously south, is extraordinarily poignant, as is the example of Terence Malick, whose light shone so brightly in the same period but then disappeared until 1997's The Thin Red Line. But at the heart of the book are the likes of Warren Beatty, Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese, Robert Redford and Quentin Tarantino and uber-producers Don Simpson and Harvey Weinstein and their excess lifestyles, all of whom Biskind portrays in great Dickensian detail, charting how they have had a simultaneously strangulating and liberating effect on the industry.
you are always doing things. :shock:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0306808013.01._PE_PIdp-schmoo2%2CTopRight%2C7%2C-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=8f42b0a295a9076dae17ce958dc040d9649b9f74)
"Inner Views: Filmmakers in Conversation" has to be one of the most illuminating books on film I've ever read. Read it last year, and have been skimming through it again recently, and am probably going to read it again soon. So I'm looking for more books in that vein. More books of in-depth interviews with collections of filmmakers. I've heard all about the "_ on _" series and whatnot, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. Any suggestions?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0941188787.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=7cf948cc35def9f551c14549aa961157d568821f)
A really good book. Highly recommended!
The book is divided into three parts: Intuition, Ideas, and Imagination.
Over 20 chapters long with two about Script Analysis and The Lost Art of Rehearsal.
Good books about crafting stories? Like 'Story' and 'The Writers Journey'. Not looking for screenwritingbooks a la Screenwriters Bible or anything from Syd Field...
Chronicles of Cinema, which covers 1895 to the present day, is a good year-by-year account of seminal events in cinema history.
Schrader on Schrader is great. Any interview with Schrader is an educational experience.
The complete Variety film reviews, from 1907 to 1996. Usually you have to go the reference section of a library to find these, but they are worth looking at.
Before My Eyes by Stanley Kauffmann, a collection of film criticism. I seldom agree with his opinions, but he is a very smart critic, and he writes very thought-provoking reviews.
Any collection of criticism by Pauline Kael or Richard Schickel is worth a look.
Quite often, there are a lot of out-of-print books at libraries that are interesting to look at.
i'm scared of books about creativity and imagination...should i fold??
As a great foundation..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.writersstore.com%2Fimages%2Fbooks%2F352.jpg&hash=e7066e7165f06ff9a71dba9ced3dcde649f826a7)
Anyone have any tips on books about cinematography?
Quote from: MyxomatosisAs a great foundation..
Syd Field's "Screenplay"
(https://xixax.com/files/jb/foundation.jpg)
have to agree with JB...
Syd Field is about as reliable a foundation as those hills that the LA houses were sliding off of last week...
Ah come on..
It's not that bad.
This is an excellent article[/color] (http://www.sydfield.com/featured_magnolia.htm) he wrote about Magnolia.
If you're gunna tear something down and call it foundationless, at least explain.
All these books :( I don't have enough time.
Can someone just tell me, who should I believe?
I found Aristotle's book on screenwriting extremely helpful story wise, also take a look at writing screenplays that sell by Hal Ackerman.
Everybody has a great Opinion :)
But we know what they say about those. . .
They're like Borjabahs?
since this thread is active i'd like to say i just bought Lynch on Lynch and am looking forward to reading it soon.
Yes Ono, opinions are annoying.
Picked this up recently
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F1400053145.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=8f35e7c4cde2ece8c35d696583066b8f1cced86f)
i know a million people have prob brought up "Story" by Robert Magee (or macee?) but that's the only book you need for screenwriting, all others are nothing. absolute wastes of cash money.
mamet's book on directing is good too, and judith weston's book directing actors is a great one.
-sl-
Quote from: socketleveli know a million people have prob brought up "Story" by Robert Magee (or macee?) but that's the only book you need for screenwriting, all others are nothing. absolute wastes of cash money.
This is not true. Though
Story is great I have one that is as good (or better):
Art of Dramatic Writing.
Written in the forties by Lajos Egri it focuses on storytelling, be it a novel, a film or a play. Though the stories he dissects are all plays.
What really gets me here is his theory about the importance of stating a premise. Premise is a statement, idea, theme, or conviction that your story proves true. For example, the premise of Romeo and Juliet would be something like "Love defies even death." The job of the screenwriter is proving it true. You don't have to start with a premise. It can be a character, an idea or a plot but if you never state a premise you won't have a play. A premise constitutes of three parts...character, conflict and end. "Love defies even death".
Love is the character or the force that drives the character into the
defying, conflict. And the outcome of that conflict is
death.
You might not understand what I'm talking about but I'm telling you...this books a good one.
Quote from: socketleveland judith weston's book directing actors is a great one.
And her second book, Film Directors Intuition is fucking fantastic.[/i]
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
(https://xixax.com/files/jb/foundation.jpg)
PTA's summer home?
Schrader on Schrader is hard to beat. Robert McKee's Story is excellent.
Quote from: kotteQuote from: socketleveli know a million people have prob brought up "Story" by Robert Magee (or macee?) but that's the only book you need for screenwriting, all others are nothing. absolute wastes of cash money.
This is not true. Though Story is great I have one that is as good (or better): Art of Dramatic Writing.
Written in the forties by Lajos Egri it focuses on storytelling, be it a novel, a film or a play. Though the stories he dissects are all plays.
What really gets me here is his theory about the importance of stating a premise. Premise is a statement, idea, theme, or conviction that your story proves true. For example, the premise of Romeo and Juliet would be something like "Love defies even death." The job of the screenwriter is proving it true. You don't have to start with a premise. It can be a character, an idea or a plot but if you never state a premise you won't have a play. A premise constitutes of three parts...character, conflict and end. "Love defies even death". Love is the character or the force that drives the character into the defying, conflict. And the outcome of that conflict is death.
You might not understand what I'm talking about but I'm telling you...this books a good one.
Quote from: socketleveland judith weston's book directing actors is a great one.
And her second book, Film Directors Intuition is fucking fantastic.[/i]
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
Quote from: socketlevel
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
All the books on screenwriting out there are all the same, yes. I've read many of them and they all cover the exact same things, with examples from Titanic and Sleepless in Seattle.
The wonderful thing about Art of Dramatic Writing is that it covers nothing on screenwriting. It's all about storytelling, drama, conflict and character. No matter what medium you're working in. This book change my attitude towards writing. It was all about art for me but now it's about craft. Storytelling is structure...
The author refers to himself as We and the reader as Young Playwright. :)
read and disagree with me... :)
Quote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevel
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
All the books on screenwriting out there are all the same, yes. I've read many of them and they all cover the exact same things, with examples from Titanic and Sleepless in Seattle.
The wonderful thing about Art of Dramatic Writing is that it covers nothing on screenwriting. It's all about storytelling, drama, conflict and character. No matter what medium you're working in. This book change my attitude towards writing. It was all about art for me but now it's about craft. Storytelling is structure...
The author refers to himself as We and the reader as Young Playwright. :)
read and disagree with me... :)
hey you never-never know, i might surprise you... but i guess that's become an M.O. of mine.
I'll go buy today, read, then tell you what i think. interesting, because i see this tying into another issue we discussed in a different forum (at least i'm pretty sure it was you?). this concept of premise you mention, and the construction of story, roots with a message/observation; articulating the meaning of the story in the most straight forward/concise manner. sounds like i'll really dig it. just to add one thing to what you're saying about writing, i think craft is the form of the art/inspiration; both are balanced and paramount.
btw i love the second Bukowski quote.
-sl-
Quote from: socketlevelQuote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevel
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
All the books on screenwriting out there are all the same, yes. I've read many of them and they all cover the exact same things, with examples from Titanic and Sleepless in Seattle.
The wonderful thing about Art of Dramatic Writing is that it covers nothing on screenwriting. It's all about storytelling, drama, conflict and character. No matter what medium you're working in. This book change my attitude towards writing. It was all about art for me but now it's about craft. Storytelling is structure...
The author refers to himself as We and the reader as Young Playwright. :)
read and disagree with me... :)
hey you never-never know, i might surprise you... but i guess that's become an M.O. of mine.
I'll go buy today, read, then tell you what i think. interesting, because i see this tying into another issue we discussed in a different forum (at least i'm pretty sure it was you?). this concept of premise you mention, and the construction of story, roots with a message/observation; articulating the meaning of the story in the most straight forward/concise manner. sounds like i'll really dig it. just to add one thing to what you're saying about writing, i think craft is the form of the art/inspiration; both are balanced and paramount.
btw i love the second Bukowski quote.
-sl-
I don't know if we discussed it but I mentioned it a few posts up.
Craft...art...it's all a matter of how you put it. Art for me is something abstract while craft is logic. Storytelling is structur (=logic) and therefor craft but how you choose to tell that story with the camera is more about artistic choices. I would say that Tarantino is more a craftsman while Lynch is definitely more on the other side...odd, weird, uncomprehensible...an artist.
I'm looking forward to your opinions on it!
Quote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevelQuote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevel
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
All the books on screenwriting out there are all the same, yes. I've read many of them and they all cover the exact same things, with examples from Titanic and Sleepless in Seattle.
The wonderful thing about Art of Dramatic Writing is that it covers nothing on screenwriting. It's all about storytelling, drama, conflict and character. No matter what medium you're working in. This book change my attitude towards writing. It was all about art for me but now it's about craft. Storytelling is structure...
The author refers to himself as We and the reader as Young Playwright. :)
read and disagree with me... :)
hey you never-never know, i might surprise you... but i guess that's become an M.O. of mine.
I'll go buy today, read, then tell you what i think. interesting, because i see this tying into another issue we discussed in a different forum (at least i'm pretty sure it was you?). this concept of premise you mention, and the construction of story, roots with a message/observation; articulating the meaning of the story in the most straight forward/concise manner. sounds like i'll really dig it. just to add one thing to what you're saying about writing, i think craft is the form of the art/inspiration; both are balanced and paramount.
btw i love the second Bukowski quote.
-sl-
I don't know if we discussed it but I mentioned it a few posts up.
Craft...art...it's all a matter of how you put it. Art for me is something abstract while craft is logic. Storytelling is structur (=logic) and therefor craft but how you choose to tell that story with the camera is more about artistic choices. I would say that Tarantino is more a craftsman while Lynch is definitely more on the other side...odd, weird, uncomprehensible...an artist.
I'm looking forward to your opinions on it!
couldn't agree more
-sl-
Quote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevelQuote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevel
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
All the books on screenwriting out there are all the same, yes. I've read many of them and they all cover the exact same things, with examples from Titanic and Sleepless in Seattle.
The wonderful thing about Art of Dramatic Writing is that it covers nothing on screenwriting. It's all about storytelling, drama, conflict and character. No matter what medium you're working in. This book change my attitude towards writing. It was all about art for me but now it's about craft. Storytelling is structure...
The author refers to himself as We and the reader as Young Playwright. :)
read and disagree with me... :)
hey you never-never know, i might surprise you... but i guess that's become an M.O. of mine.
I'll go buy today, read, then tell you what i think. interesting, because i see this tying into another issue we discussed in a different forum (at least i'm pretty sure it was you?). this concept of premise you mention, and the construction of story, roots with a message/observation; articulating the meaning of the story in the most straight forward/concise manner. sounds like i'll really dig it. just to add one thing to what you're saying about writing, i think craft is the form of the art/inspiration; both are balanced and paramount.
btw i love the second Bukowski quote.
-sl-
I don't know if we discussed it but I mentioned it a few posts up.
Craft...art...it's all a matter of how you put it. Art for me is something abstract while craft is logic. Storytelling is structur (=logic) and therefor craft but how you choose to tell that story with the camera is more about artistic choices. I would say that Tarantino is more a craftsman while Lynch is definitely more on the other side...odd, weird, uncomprehensible...an artist.
I'm looking forward to your opinions on it!
i think its a double edge sword with both.
regarding writing:
structure = logic
the story you choose to tell = art
a well structured story may be in good in craft, but does not neccesarily mean its interesting.
regarding filmmaking:
technique and execution = craft
how and why one chooses to execute = art
a well crafted film is nothing without story - just as a great story poorly crafted will suffer.
one can say that one is craft and the other is art - it really is all relative.
they can not be seperated in my opinion. Filmmaking needs a perfect blend of craft and art.
Lynch is both a craftsman and an artist. Just as tarantino is.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevelQuote from: kotteQuote from: socketlevel
i get you, sounds like it ties into three act structure.
i'll check both our for sure! It's hard to come by anything good which provides new thought, most books just cover things that through a little trial and error, on your own, you'd get anyway.
-sl-
All the books on screenwriting out there are all the same, yes. I've read many of them and they all cover the exact same things, with examples from Titanic and Sleepless in Seattle.
The wonderful thing about Art of Dramatic Writing is that it covers nothing on screenwriting. It's all about storytelling, drama, conflict and character. No matter what medium you're working in. This book change my attitude towards writing. It was all about art for me but now it's about craft. Storytelling is structure...
The author refers to himself as We and the reader as Young Playwright. :)
read and disagree with me... :)
hey you never-never know, i might surprise you... but i guess that's become an M.O. of mine.
I'll go buy today, read, then tell you what i think. interesting, because i see this tying into another issue we discussed in a different forum (at least i'm pretty sure it was you?). this concept of premise you mention, and the construction of story, roots with a message/observation; articulating the meaning of the story in the most straight forward/concise manner. sounds like i'll really dig it. just to add one thing to what you're saying about writing, i think craft is the form of the art/inspiration; both are balanced and paramount.
btw i love the second Bukowski quote.
-sl-
I don't know if we discussed it but I mentioned it a few posts up.
Craft...art...it's all a matter of how you put it. Art for me is something abstract while craft is logic. Storytelling is structur (=logic) and therefor craft but how you choose to tell that story with the camera is more about artistic choices. I would say that Tarantino is more a craftsman while Lynch is definitely more on the other side...odd, weird, uncomprehensible...an artist.
I'm looking forward to your opinions on it!
i think its a double edge sword with both.
regarding writing:
structure = logic
the story you choose to tell = art
a well structured story may be in good in craft, but does not neccesarily mean its interesting.
regarding filmmaking:
technique and execution = craft
how and why one chooses to execute = art
a well crafted film is nothing without story - just as a great story poorly crafted will suffer.
one can say that one is craft and the other is art - it really is all relative.
they can not be seperated in my opinion. Filmmaking needs a perfect blend of craft and art.
Lynch is both a craftsman and an artist. Just as tarantino is.
i think he's talking about at the story stage. tarantino and lynch do lean towards the opposite ends though; you'd have to agree with that. both are artists, but one is far more cerebral.
i agree with everything you're saying though. mind you, one thing to note, these days great craft (just regarding filming, not script writing) is commonplace. so i have more interest in a film that has a good story but the craft isn't up to par than vice versa. don't get me wrong, you want both but everyone getting into the industry seems to stop at just being technologically driven.
-sl-
What elevates this book is the fact that it's about storytelling and structure (not aimed at a particular medium) which also makes it a study of man and his psychology. And that, I find very fascinating (it also have some biology in it :)).
Not everything Lajos Egri says in the book is gold, though. There definitely are moments where I totally disagree. But that allows me to more carefully reevaluate my own opinion and it forces me to take stand.
There are one thing Egri writes that really resonates in The Aviator, the end especially.
"No doubt about it, there were ruthless characters throughout history, and they were the ones who influenced, for better or for worse, the destiny of man."
And the book wasn't written yesterday...
"...he must have additional talent to write for that new and exciting medium, television"
:)
Quote from: GhostboyThe Film Sense (by Sergei Eisenstein).
Would you or someone else care to discuss the better Eisenstein text -- The Film Sense or The Film Form? Highlights of each or personal preferences?
eizZZZzzenstein. kubrick knew it.
socket, did you ever get to read The Art of Dramatic Writing?
Indie's 'Dirty' trick
Duo to turn tome into laffer
Source: Variety
The influence of Harvey Weinstein and Robert Redford on the indie film scene provided the intrigue in Peter Biskind's 2004 "Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance and the Rise of Independent Film." Now, helmer Ken Bowser and scribe Dean Craig are hoping the behind-the-scenes drama can provide enough fodder for a laffer.
Pair has teamed with Palm-Star Entertainment to develop Biskind's "Down and Dirty Pictures" into a feature-length comedy, with Bowser aboard to direct and Craig signed to adapt.
Palm-Star CEO and co-founder Kevin Frakes is producing. Palm-Star chairman and co-founder Stephan Paternot will exec produce with Tiwary Entertainment Group's Sriram Das and Gary Kaplan.
Bowser directed a 2003 docu based on Biskind's book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood." He describes "Down and Dirty Pictures" as "outrageous" and "insane."
Tome tracks the rise of independent film starting in the 1990s thanks to such films as "Pulp Fiction" and "sex, lies, and videotape." Weinstein and Redford, who figure prominently throughout the book, are credited with playing a key part in the success of the genre, though both are criticized for their personal dealings. A rep for Weinstein at the Weinstein Co. had no comment Tuesday.
" 'Down and Dirty Pictures' was so obviously a movie that I was a little amazed when we managed to snatch up the rights before the studios moved in," Bowser said. "You couldn't make these guys up. They're like offensive linemen rampaging across the fields of Sundance sacking anyone who gets in their way, while the handsome movie star owner of the stadium smiles benevolently down on his charges. If that's not a movie, I don't know what is."
Bowser has also done some work for "Saturday Night Live," including helming "Saturday Night Live in the 80s: Lost & Found." More recently, he wrote and produced a John Ford/John Wayne episode of "American Masters." Craig wrote pics "Caffeine" and "Death at a Funeral."
Palm-Star opened shop last year. Shingle's early credits include Theo Avgerinos' "Fifty Pills," which bowed at this year's Tribeca Film Festival, and Pete Chatmon's "Premium."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.simonsays.com%2Fassets%2Fisbn%2F0743256301%2FBC_0743256301.jpg&hash=e7eec81d81405846220d780640d33fe3c6c8b9e7)
Excerpt: Christine Vachon's "A Killer Life"
Christine Vachon's newest imprint, "A Killer Life," is being teased on the Simon & Schuster site where open access to the book's introduction is offered.
Note Vachon's sartorial prep for L.A.:
My strategy is to stay a moving target. I've got a reputation for "edgy," "dark" material -- the kind of movie where you're maybe rooting for the bad guy. I'm also frequently accused of operating with a political agenda. A gay agenda. An aggressive-New Yorker agenda. When I go to L.A. for meetings, sometimes I feel like I have to put on my "uniform" -- black pants, black T-shirt, combat boots -- so that nobody gets confused and thinks I've come over to the bright side.
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=503951&agid=2
A Killer Life: Indie Producer Christine Vachon in Person!
Buy Tickets: http://www.filmlinc.com/tix.php?e=8265
Mon Sept 25 7pm
Special Screening of Boys Don't Cry (Kimberly Peirce, USA, 1999; 118m) followed by discussion and book signing.
On the occasion of the publication of Christine Vachon's memoir A Killer Life: How an Independent Film Producer Survives Deals and Disasters in Hollywood and Beyond (Simon & Schuster), the Film Society is pleased to welcome Ms. Vachon to the Walter Reade Theater for a screening of Boys Don't Cry (starring Best Actress Oscar© winner Hilary Swank). This Academy Award© winning film, which was shown in the New York Film Festival in 1999, is a sensitive and subtle rendering of the tragic true story of Brandon Teena, whose masquerade as a man courted jealousy and met a violent revenge. In reviewing the film, Janet Maslin of the New York Times called executive producer Christine Vachon "habitually daring."
The screening will be followed by a discussion about life in an independent world with the Film Society's program director, Richard Peña. At the end of the evening, Ms. Vachon will be signing copies of A Killer Life, which will be available for sale in the Walter Reade lobby.
Since teaming up with Todd Haynes on his first feature, Poison, in 1991, Christine Vachon has become an iconic figure in the independent cinema scene. In fact, her production company, Killer Films, is one of the few truly independent production companies still around. Many of her films have been featured by the Film Society — Swoon (Tom Kalin, 1992), I Shot Andy Warhol (Marry Harron, 1996) and Camp (Todd Graff, 2003) all had their New York premieres in New Directors/New Films, while Dottie Gets Spanked (Todd Haynes, 1993), Happiness (Todd Solondz, 1998), Velvet Goldmine (Todd Haynes, 1998), Storytelling (Todd Solondz, 2001) and Boys Don't Cry (Kimberly Peirce, 1999) premiered at the New York Film Festival.
Shooting To Kill was a very formative read for this then-neophyte filmmaker - I just ordered this, and can't wait to read it.
Quote from: Lucid on September 06, 2006, 11:58:55 PM
She's making an S.F. appearance, and I'm going to try my best to make it. There's a fee, but hey, we get a swanky wine and cheese reception (courtesy of the Whole Foods on Harrison, no doubt)! Even as a non-filmmaker, Shooting to Kill was a great read for me.
CHRISTINE VACHON | TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26
Film Producer; Author, A Killer Life
In conversation with PETER STEIN, Executive Director, San Francisco Jewish Film Festival
SURVIVING HOLLYWOOD: NOTES FROM AN INDEPENDENT FILM PRODUCER
How do smaller studios and filmmakers get ahead in the cut-throat film world? Academy Award nominee Vachon broke into the Hollywood boys club as a producer on the indie scene. Get the dirt from the woman whose credits include some of the most acclaimed independent pictures of the past decade, such as Hedwig & The Angry Inch and Boys Don't Cry.
5:30 p.m., Wine and cheese reception | 6:00 p.m., Program | 7:00 p.m., Book signing | Club office, 595 Market St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco | $12 for Members, $18 for Non-Members
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/sf.html
OOOOOOH!
I'm gonna try to make this as well. I also loved reading Shooting to Kill, and look forward to reading this new book. And getting it signed!
WATCH YOUR BACK, LUCID!
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 17, 2006, 03:14:51 AM
Quote from: matt35mm on September 13, 2006, 01:30:34 AM
Quote from: modage on September 11, 2006, 09:08:32 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.barnesandnoble.com%2Fimages%2F11590000%2F11590166.jpg&hash=15f137e55dffce6dc785a036cafadaeb520d9f17)
Moi aussi, in preparation for Ms. Vachon's visit to San Francisco.
Yo también.
Wait, also in preparation for her appearance there or just reading the book?
Quote from: matt35mm on September 17, 2006, 10:51:36 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 17, 2006, 03:14:51 AM
Quote from: matt35mm on September 13, 2006, 01:30:34 AM
Quote from: modage on September 11, 2006, 09:08:32 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.barnesandnoble.com%2Fimages%2F11590000%2F11590166.jpg&hash=15f137e55dffce6dc785a036cafadaeb520d9f17)
Moi aussi, in preparation for Ms. Vachon's visit to San Francisco.
Yo también.
Wait, also in preparation for her appearance there or just reading the book?
I haven't heard about her coming to L.A., so I'm just copying mod.
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 17, 2006, 02:36:52 PM
I haven't heard about her coming to LA, so I'm just copying mod.
Oh. God, Mac, do you always have to wait to hear about what's going on? Why don't you bother to search information out?
http://www.booksoup.com/authorevents.asp
Skip down to September 28th. She'll be there at 7pm. Have fun.
Quote from: matt35mm on September 17, 2006, 02:40:46 PMGod, Mac, do you always have to wait to hear about what's going on? Why don't you bother to search information out?
Because the LA Times only had book signing listings up until Sept. 22nd in the Book Review.
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 17, 2006, 02:44:10 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on September 17, 2006, 02:40:46 PMGod, Mac, do you always have to wait to hear about what's going on? Why don't you bother to search information out?
Because the LA Times only had book signing listings up until Sept. 22nd in today's Book Review.
(Sigh) You're welcome.
I kid... I kid... I bow down to you as King of Information at XIXAX.
i dont think i'm going to see her, (even though it's only $10 and they're showing Boys Dont Cry too) but i did enjoy the book. hope to read Shooting to Kill ASAP.
Please stop building quote ziggurats.
A KILLER LIFE: INDIE PRODUCER CHRISTINE VACHON - Mon Sept 25 - 7pm
Special 2 for 1 ticket offer. Buy one ticket online or at the box office and get a 2nd free at the box office!
Come see Christine Vachon's Academy Award winning film BOYS DON'T CRY on the big screen then stick around post-screening when she will take your questions from the stage. Afterwards Vachon will sign copies of her new book A KILLER LIFE: HOW AN INDEPENDENT FILM PRODUCER SURVIVES DEALS AND DISASTERS IN HOLLYWOOD AND BEYOND, available for sale that evening in the Walter Reade lobby. http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/akillerlife.html
How was the wine and cheese?
Vachon produces a real-life page turner
Source: Hollywood Reporter
NEW YORK -- It's hard to know how Christine Vachon does it. Surely it's not easy being the mother of a 7-year-old daughter, producing four films in the summer alone (including longtime collaborator Todd Haynes' star-filled Bob Dylan-inspired epic "I'm Not There") and promoting her new autobiography with a title that sums up her attempt to juggle it all: "A Killer Life: How an Independent Film Producer Survives Deals and Disasters in Hollywood and Beyond."
She has been working this hard for more than two decades and there still is much on the horizon at her Killer Films, which she leads with partners Pamela Koffler and Katie Roumel and primary funding from John Wells. Her upcoming projects include Julian Schnabel's "The Lonely Doll," a biopic of children's author Dare Wright; an adaptation of Brad Land's college hazing memoir "Goat"; and Helen Hunt's directorial debut, "Then She Found Me," in which the actress will play a school teacher.
In her book, indie film guru John Pierson, top film execs like Bob Berney and directors including Mark Romanek and John Cameron Mitchell have contributed odes to her perseverance. Even former Focus Features co-president David Linde added a few pages, despite a section where Vachon details her grudge over his company's "Far From Heaven" Oscar campaign.
"In a business filled with narcissistic, deceitful misanthropes, Christine is the antidote: a truthful voice driven by pure passion for film," says longtime collaborator and producer Ted Hope, who will be interviewing Vachon on Oct. 19 at the Hamptons International Film Festival.
Vachon's tough, no-nonsense style even has inspired grudging respect from those she has battled, including Harvey Weinstein with whom she argued over the final cut of Haynes' "Velvet Goldmine."
"I feel like on every movie, Killer Films has to be ruthless," she says. "But to me, ruthlessness implies one goal above all others, though, and usually in the kind of movies we make it's a lot more complicated than that. It's about protecting the filmmakers' vision but also massaging the talent, making sure the financiers are happy ..."
Despite her reputation, Vachon bends over backward to be diplomatic in her book, and often withholds names to protect the not so innocent. "A lot of people are surprised by how it's sort of a tell-all, but not in a way that exacts revenge," she says, yet jokes that "my last book will be posthumous."
Vachon worked on "Killer Life" with co-writer Austin Bunn for about three years. "I don't think either of us expected us to be such a long, drawn-out process, but just as we were about to conclude it something else would come up," she says. "Otherwise, it would have encompassed the shooting of Todd's movie, the release of Tommy O'Haver's 'An American Crime' and (Tom Kalin's true crime tale) 'Savage Grace.' There was just too much." She did manage to include a chapter expressing her understandable dismay over producing the second Truman Capote biopic, Douglas McGrath's "Infamous."
The book follows how Vachon's expertise has grown with the industry. "There's a lot more equity financiers who are funding at every single level," she says. "I know a lot more about how to mix foreign financing, soft money or German funds with equity and our distributors than I ever thought I would need to know."
"I'm Not There" came together this way after many stops and starts. "It was just a million different pieces and very hard to keep it all on track," she says. "Now everything's fine." But when asked what advice she would give to aspiring producers, her game face disappears. "Don't do it," she sighs.
Book Review:
Hollywood Monster Rampage: Art vs. Egos
By JANET MASLIN; New York Times
David Mamet's "Bambi vs. Godzilla" takes its title from a two-minute animated short (actually "Bambi Meets Godzilla") in which the monster crushes the innocent little fawn. This would make a fine metaphor for the way the film business treats artists if it didn't mean miscasting Mr. Mamet in Bambi's role. As the lacerating essays in this uneven but icily hilarious collection make clear, he is far better suited to stomping on Tokyo.
"Bambi vs. Godzilla" is devoted to pet peeves, some of them standard. No surprises here: Mr. Mamet abhors crass producers, meaningless spectacles, focus groups, ambitious studio drones and specious screenwriting. About one particularly bad sequel, he says: "Jewish law states that there are certain crimes that cannot be forgiven, as they cannot be undone. It lists murder and adultery. I add this film."
That Jewish law is invoked more than once here. And the book repeats itself on certain points, like Mr. Mamet's boundless admiration of "The Godfather." Perhaps the repackaging of redundant journalism in book form (much of this material comes from his column for The Guardian of London, though some originally appeared in Harper's Magazine) belongs on the same list of transgressions, but no matter. Mr. Mamet writes with insight, idiosyncrasy and a Godzillian imperviousness to opposition.
Like Sidney Lumet's "Making Movies" and William Goldman's books of advice on filmmaking, Mr. Mamet describes the process from the ground up, with a keen eye for evidence of the absurd. He claims to have seen a sign on a movie set reading, "Gum is for principal cast members only," since this is a business that never forgets about pecking order. And after promising to offend several groups with one thesis, he suggests that the hallmarks of Asperger's syndrome ("early precocity, a great ability to maintain masses of information, a lack of ability to mix with groups in age-appropriate ways") add up to the job description of a movie director.
Mr. Mamet, who has nothing but disgust for the emphasis on backstory and characterization that can turn a movie into mush, also notices how much the idiom of the modern screenplay overlaps with that of the personals column, so that a character may be described as "beautiful, smart, funny, likes long walks and dogs, affectionate, kind, honest, sexy." This filler, he says, winds up "replacing dialogue and camera angles, the only two aspects of a screenplay actually of use."
Much of "Bambi vs. Godzilla" is devoted to separating useful and useless aspects of the filmmaking process. "It is enough to drive one to the fainting couch," he says about Hollywood's paralyzing practice of making films of increasing expense and diminishing worth. When he sees a poster that lists the names of 18 producers, he wonders whether "the film, perhaps, is being made no longer to attract the audience but to buttress or advance the position of the executive." If this kind of bureaucrat has replaced the old-fashioned intuitive mogul, "it is not that the fox has taken over the henhouse but, if I may, that the doorman has taken over the bordello."
With entertaining bitterness Mr. Mamet skewers the kind of person destined to succeed in this corporate culture. And a figure skewered by him winds up sounding as tough and treacherous as someone from a Mamet play. "The young bureaucrat-in-training" is apt to learn "that success comes not from pleasing the audience but from placating his superiors until that time it is reasoned effective to betray them." As for the screenwriter-in-training at film school, "one can study marching, the entry-level skill of the military, until one shines at it as has none other," he writes. "This will not, however, make it more likely that one will be tapped to be the Secretary of the Army."
If such opinions are apt to disappoint anyone looking to Mr. Mamet for career advice, they will delight those who share his cynicism. Is there a worthwhile message to be found within the big, vacuous blockbuster? Yes: "You are a member of a country, a part of a system capable of wasting two hundred million dollars on an hour and a half of garbage. You must be somebody." He finds this brand of wastefulness equally conspicuous in current moviemaking and military strategy.
If Hollywood's idea of entertainment is actually "tincture of art," and if studio executives "want, in effect, to find the script for the hit of last year," how can a serious filmmaker stay afloat? By recognizing the vital difference between stimulation and drama, for one thing. ("One may sit in front of the television for five hours, but after 'King Lear' one goes home.") By resisting demands for arbitrary alterations in one's work, the kinds of changes that raise doubts about the work's seriousness. What would happen, he asks, to an architect who was similarly accommodating? ("Would you mind moving the staircase? Thank you. Now would you mind moving the skylight?") And by understanding the etiquette of betrayal, Hollywood style. "Should the project go awry," he writes, "you will be notified by a complete lack of contact with those in whose hands its administration has rested."
Some of "Bambi vs. Godzilla" is painfully contorted. ("What shibboleth, you wonder, will I list to augment your umbrage?") Some of it goes nowhere. But most of this sharp, savvy book is amusing and reassuring. Somebody with a keen knowledge of gamesmanship knows exactly how Hollywood's games are played. And refuses to play by the rules.
Is anyone aware of any books on production design, costume, hair, make-up, etc and all that goes into it?
The more engaging the better, biographical or technical, but it ultimately doesn't matter.
Also, I'd like to recommend to any of you interested in making film, please pick up a copy of Josef von Sternberg's Fun in a Chinese Laundry. It may be listed as an "auto-biography," but he speaks very little of his life before film, and doesn't give specific accounts of each of his films, so prior knowledge of his work is hardly neccessary (although, you should REALLY pick up that new Criterion box set (http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/744-3-silent-classics-by-josef-von-sternberg)). He gives an entertaining history of his personal practices with the medium, all the while imparting some very good advice on everything from Lighting to how to deal with actors.
I got something out of this book about Production Designers. It's an interview book - mostly anecdotes but some theory too.
By Design (http://www.amazon.com/Design-Interviews-Film-Production-Designers/dp/0275940314/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284431438&sr=1-2)
Thanks a lot!
(A bit late on this, but) Austin Bunn was my Drama Writing Workshop professor. He told me that I should take a Fiction writing workshop.