i didn’t study film-making. and my focus is to get the story out there not thinking if people will like it or not because not everyone will like it anyway and as long as i like it enough and i did my best on it, i’m assured not everyone will dislike it ahwehwehwe

i notice that quite a number of film-makers are after the film-feel even if they’re using digital. my point is, even in technicals and techniques, a lot of film-makers out there are “controlled” by what they are fed to be generally-acceptable means. i’d like to think that just as each one is unique, each one’s art is too. and if you just do what good you can, and exert your best efforts, “once you build it, they will come.”

and if no one comes, you still have something you can be proud of.

It is true that cultural actualization can only be attained after you attend to basic necessities (Maslowe’s Heirarchy of needs). Of course someone who’s living under a bridge won’t think about making a film about living under the bridge. But you have to consider innovations like digital filmmaking that expands the bounderies of filmmaking and extends it from the über elites to the middle class. The costs will continue to become smaller through time, and that’s democracy for you. Ho ho. Kung nalalabuan ka, dalhin mo sa IM, ayokong damihan ng comments ko etong thread.

in the first place, as i’ve said, the very nature of film demands it to be less independent than other art forms or media like painting or even blogging. one, because it is relatively costly which is why it’s still often about funding and recouping investments. two, it’s a team effort to make a film so you can not just independently call all the shots. three, it’s a public medium, you can not make films by yourself for yourself. a fimmaker should not be independent from his audience.

I guess this goes with Karl na rin, maybe my concept of “independence” is that your primary purpose is to produce art for arts’ sake, and it’s the soul and passion in the film that would make it rake awards, and eventually, get fully publicized. Cinemalaya, is a venue for that, an exposure of this independent ventures, it’s more of a cultural facet of the art of filmmaking, instead of the industrial side of it.

Somehow, I still buy the image of the “starving artist”. Or you could be naturally rich lang talaga and have creative control of your projects. Of course, financing capabilities play a part, but what I’m saying is, rich financiers of their own projects aren’t really liable to the creative control of anyone else, that makes them independent. And just because they’re the “privileged few”, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s not independent anymore.

On side note, Kidlat Tahimik studied in WHARTON (University of Pennsylvania). Wuuuh. Dream school.

About being provided with the medium, I think the word ‘expensive’ should be placed right next to ‘friends’ slash ‘backers’ slash ‘relatives’ in the film industry–independent/semi-independent or not. So awful to imagine.

Why don’t we kill Mother Lily instead? ^_^