i saw the topics for discussion.
looks like it was fun!
on a totally out of the way comment, CCP is so pretty.

Filmmaking is supposed to be an opportunity for all. Filmmaking is art. Drawing is art. I draw since I have a pencil, a sheet of paper, and an eraser. If you have the necessary people and equipment, why not?

Viva et. al. has been monopolizing our movie industry that’s why small players find movie distribution exaggeratingly difficult–

Yes, no matter how quite hypocritical (or not) it is (for us perhaps) to view people with such italicized statement, progression of indie will always depend on our audience–regardless of its number–as long as these audiences are motivated to patronize these kind of films.

If you have the necessary people and equipment, why not? yes, why not? the thing is, filmmaking, though it has become more acessible, remains to be an expensive endeavor. I don’t think a medium is truly independent if resources and connections remain in the hands of just a few. and film being ap public medium, you can never be truly independent because i believe a filmmaker is never independent from his audience or from the society he is situated in. it cannot be an medium by oneself for oneself, in contrary to what drawing or blogging can be.

bikoy: if you had to choose: celluloid or indie film? which one.

neon: they are not exclusive of each other, not even parallel. an independent production can use celluloid film and a mainstream studio can, and some do, use digital formats

now i know. feeling ko pinapagalitan ako ni bikoy

ngek. hindi kita pinapagalitan

ano ba yan neon, wag ka na nga lang mag-comment kung wala ring sense yung mga tanong mo. celluloid is a technical aspect of film, independence is ideological. and i don’t even need to be a film major to know that.

for bikoy naman, ano ba naman yung treatment mo ng independent films. it’s like asking “can a person be truly independent?” (the entire notion that a person can live on his/her own and be financially independent, but in a sense, you’re still depending on society to deliver you your needs) we’re beyond the age of literal self-sufficience! this is just becoming a redundant thing for you to discuss, and i don’t know how many congresses you need to attend to truly understand the nature of independent films. independence is simply defined by non-conformity, where a filmmaker won’t necessarily adhere to a studio system prevalent in satisfying profit maximizers (because, to be a profit maximizer, you need to satisfy the values of the market, ergo, limiting factors, such us the conflict of intellectuality and entertainment - not that they are mutually exclusive). The age-old adage that independent films are films for the sake of art is true, not that you’re not doing art by making mainstream, it’s just that it’s the sole priority in independent films.

ok.

the way it looks like to me, celeni, it’s still often always about who has the money to make the film. unless you have the resources yourself, a filmmaker is always bound to whoever has the money. may you be an independent or a mainstream director. that’s not independence for me. and my rhetorical question was, can filmmaking, being largely a costly and higly logistical endeavor, be independent in the first place? the whole talk of making independent movies and distributing it for other people to see made me feel like independent filmmaking in the philippines is simply the shifting of attention from the traditional cliques of directors and producers to newer ones who still work and would want to work within the same produce-distribute system.

celeni: i agree with bikoy. the issue of independence in the philippine film industry is an economic issue more than anything else. the rise of independent filmmaking here is because of a rotten state of affairs which hinders filmmakers to thrive (artistically, politically, economically, etc) within the collective action of studio systems. more than the sheer desire to articulate alternative artistic intentions, the reason filmmakers are going indie is more basic: because they have no other viable venue to be able to make films.

That’s true Bikoy. Opportunity only for the super-privileged few. Super–there are people having the privileges but then these ‘monsters’ I suppose gobble opportunities for the aspirant ‘thousands’. That’s very disappointing.

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? ^_^

Victor: So essentially, what I derive from your conclusions, is that “independence” in the Philippine Cinema context, is merely a marketing strategy, wherein people choose to be deviant in order to draw attention to themselves and eventually, continue the system of mainstreaming projects?

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.

yun nga yung sinasabi ko. the closest way you can be a truly independent filmmaker is if you finance your own project and call all the shots. but are there people like that? starving artists who’d make films by themselves for themselves? for the sake of art? are the filmmakers in cinemalaya in that kind of situation? I don’t think so. they’re still being funded by someone else, still being held subject to a “screening committee”, still being held by how marketable a film can be after it makes its cinemalaya run. and theres nothing wrong with that.

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 my problem with your problem is, you’re defining too much the limits. If you take at India, they have a thriving film industry because even if they’re a poor country, they celebrate their culture through film. Okay, maybe Bollywood is mainstream, but there are also Indian indie (haha) filmmakers on the periphery.

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.

celeni:
1. my concept of independence here is tht your primary purpose is to make a film, period. no statement on art-for-art’s sake or anything. the point is, if you want to make a film, you’re forced by economics to go indie. we’re talking about the independence to actually produce a film, not yet the independence of content and form. anyway, lol, this probably aint the right venue for this. sa classroom natin pag-usapan ang ganito para magkaroon ng uproar of discourse sa UPFI!

Karl - wala kasi akong masscomm classroom this sem.

hi. it’s been extremely difficult but we’re now doing the final edit of a short and on the last shoot days of a feature. there have been very few donations. no one from the actors to the production people are getting paid at all. and personal finances are always so tight. but hopefully, by september 30, we can show our two films. i’m currently looking for an affordable venue — i’ve asked galleria and cine adarna and they charge at least 20,000 bucks. and i still have to find an ok projector (galleria doesn’t have one)… i was thinking not to charge fees or sell tickets and just ask anyone who wants to donate any amount… for the next project.

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.