#21 ·
...but isn't he actually contradicting his own last sentence here? ...
I assume you’re talking about how QT tends to pick actors who aren't exactly "A-list superstars" for his projects (at least regarding his first three movies). From what I gather, his focus is on creating a "sustainable film industry." I think he means an industry that actually funds itself rather than relying on government subsidies—which is pretty much the standard model over in North America. Because if we follow that logic to its conclusion, for a film industry to survive, it has to pivot toward pure entertainment and the whole "star system" thing. Basically, churning out Hollywood or Bollywood-style trash and soap opera movies just so studios can bank enough cash to eventually fund more auteur-driven or high-quality stuff. In reality, market forces in almost any part of human existence tend to force mediocrity upon us; honestly, a tiny percentage of films coming out of those three regions are actually... really good. On the flip side, you have this "elite system" in North America where certain directors churn out films year after year like they’re in some kind of permanent employment contract. They might hit a home run one year, but then they go quiet for the next few. Generational shifts in American cinema move at a snail's pace and rarely feel revolutionary. So, despite the initial idea of funding this specific artistic approach to filmmaking, it all just boils down to "if it works, it works." I get the feeling that these two wildly different philosophies of filmmaking are actually just externalizations—you know, the outward manifestation of how different societies function.
hopefully there's more to come...