Film making versus "show business".

[George Ebersole]

So, for the last 12 years I've had a lot of efforts put into getting me in touch with the Los Angeles film industry. Upon reflection the "powers that be" (to put it politely) who have tried to guide my life, knew a lot about the commercial feature film and television industry, but didn't have a whole lot of artistic film making savvy.

 

"Show business", to me, is about promoting on screen talent for single projects or televised series by way of drawing attention to said onscreen talent to help bolster both onscreen talent and show's profile and reputation.

 

Growing up in the 70s and 80s, like a few of you people here, I saw my share of "specials" of all sorts on network television, and never really understood why it was that there was such an emphasis on showing off talent instead of good films.

 

I don't like "show business". When LA crews and talent would cruise into the Bay Area in the late 80s there was a kind of brashness that, to me at least, seemed unprofessional. Maybe it was because I had worked on too many corporate videos and commercials, but to me film making, even if you were shooting corporate video, was about conveying information in a tasteful and useful (and even perhaps artistic) manner.

 

But the entertainment industry, again to my naïve mind, seemed more to rely on hunting for talent who could make art for whatever agenda they had in terms of projects. And there seemed to be such an emphasis on name screen talent that I often wondered why the whole thing didn't collapse.

 

Just some thoughts from a hobbyist.

 

p.s. for the record, I don't like "show business", I don't like "talent" with massive egos, and never understood the idolization of "big name stars". It's always been my opinion that competent talent, no matter how obscure, can make your project sing. Thank goodness for silicon valley and streaming. I think I'll go to that Carl's Junior across the street from YouTube tomorrow.

[Tyler Purcell]

I think your disconnect comes from money. Umm... it cost a lot of money to make a movie, with or without cast. If you're shooting a feature length movie about a car that drives itself, with no actors involved, it still costs a lot of money. So the question is, how does one get the money to finance their movies.

 

This is where "the star" comes into play. The industry knows how much any given star will draw to the box office. They actually put an exact figure on it based on previous history. So people attach stars to movies, simply as a way to make return on investment. It attracts an audience, which henceforth reimburses the investors.

 

So in a way you're right about the industry wanting to promote stars, because they know how invaluable they are as a money making tool. You'd have to change the mind set of the viewers to make any difference and frankly, most viewers are interested in the safest bet, rather then the faces they don't recognize. With ticket prices so high these days, most people aren't willing to risk the little movie with the no-names vs the big blockbuster with bla bla bla in it. Where on the small screen, the financial burden is less, so that's why a lot of TV shows don't have big stars, they don't need them. Mind you, the trend of putting big stars into shows has been growing for sure.

[George Ebersole]

But it seems to me that there was a time when indy films had staying power if they were good enough.

[Max Field]

I agree that there was a time where films like that could survive and grab their own momentum without a star. That was the time before fast internet, before video games were engaging past a single hour.

 

One considering that star/art balance as lopsided wouldn't be completely ridiculous, but I enjoy it. The challenge of still making your visual/audible art shine through the rules of a commercial film. I won't lie, I favor the "show business" aspects, but what I favor even more is supplementing that with artistic innovations to have legitimate staying power in said "show business".

 

Everyone you've seen who's lasted more than a decade in commercial film has almost always come with something fresh to the table at first. Those guys appreciate the art and innovation just as much as you, but their bank account's are after the corporations.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Macks Fiiod

[George Ebersole]

Well, most of what I did was corporate video, and the companies I worked for always had a fresh approach to creating commercials or industrials. To me the talent was no less than the big name so-called A-list stars in LA and NY. The only difference was that they didn't have the name recognition and budgets for feature films.

 

The other aspect was that in corporate video you don't have a lot of extreme drama nor "over the top" moments in performance. And it always seemed to me that the indy films that got recognized in new paper write ups or noted at award ceremonies, didn't have the same degree of energy by the actors put into their performances. The reviews would call them "more realistic" or some other descriptor.

 

And it seems now that (thankfully) technology has reached the masses, that we are seeing better indy shorts via Vimeo or YouTube or even on indy websites. And it seemed like Hollywood intentionally cut those people off for decades.

[George Ebersole]

I should also apologize here. I didn't mean to say that all LA crews, people working out of the LA area, nor even the people posting here who live and work in LA are brash jerks. Truly, I know that's what it sounds like I said, but it's not what I meant.

 

It just seemed like people in "show business" have a different and insular approach to making films that historically held back and still holds back better material.

 

That verse the dude and dudette who just wants to make some rocking visuals for people to see.

[Tyler Purcell]

But it seems to me that there was a time when indy films had staying power if they were good enough.

Inflation and the quality of product are the two reasons things have changed in the last 20 + years.

 

So inflation because today things are more expensive, so people ask for more money to work and henceforth movies cost more to make. Actors specifically ask for exorbitant amounts of money because there is a prescience set that allows to get whatever they want.

 

Quality of product has also gone up, things today have to be perfect where 20 years ago, there was a lot more sloppy filmmaking being done and the audience just didn't know better.

 

There are really great indies being made today, stuff that would blow your mind away, but most of them don't get any distribution what so ever, so they're only available on itunes or some VOD services.

[George Ebersole]

*snip*

 

Quality of product has also gone up, things today have to be perfect where 20 years ago, there was a lot more sloppy filmmaking being done and the audience just didn't know better.

 

*snip*

 

And I guess that's maybe really my core issue. When the industry was more consolidated than it is now, it seemed like anybody with connections could make garbage and throw it up on screen, and yet really good indy films never saw the light of day.

 

I think it's changed now. But "back in the day" it sure did seem like the insular nature prevented a lot of good product, and that that same insular nature made going into film very unappealing and unattractive, even if you had a solid idea.

 

And it seemed like the people I had to contend with, who were (and are) based out of LA, didn't recognize that their industry was going to be fundamentally changed. They were still in the "star system" so to speak, where you flaunted A-list actors in big productions.

 

All I ever wanted to do was make little indy stuff as is possible to day, and not deal with networking, cajoling producers to invest or to raise the money, and everything else that goes on in the pre-production field down in Los Angeles.

 

I remember growing up and seeing big splashy productions on TV or in the theatre, and I kept wondering what was so special about the film if it was just name talent with lots of money. But that's what show business is all about.

 

If you want to just tell some really cool stories, don't have some social psychological agenda, then you couldn't make your film prior to the 90s. And it's like the people I've had to deal with didn't know that, didn't know what they were part of, and probably only now just realize how ... different their perspectives were based on their life experience of working in "show business".

 

Thank goodness for Silicon Valley and the Japanese. Science and technology rock, and trump egos everytime.

 

I appreciate things like "The Dick Van Dyke Show" or "Eight is Enough" or "Cleopatra" or "My Fair Lady" and whatever other big name product that came out of the LA segment of media, but I think there's a disconnect with the powers that be and how technology has democratized media, and done so for the better.

 

The flip side is that there's more racist and just bigoted material out there than ever before, but now people can look at ideas, good and bad, and examine them for all their worth and what they know or believe they know, instead of having the old guard keep out us barbarians who don't have any foul ideas, but would like to make good visuals ... just like any artist.

 

Yeah ... we're living in a better time for visual media.

 

Sorry for the rambling rant. I just had to get that out there.