Sundance Film Festival - 2008

northerncrane4 said:I honestly find it hard to believe any American distributor would even touch this for a theatrical release. My only hope is that if one actually does pick it up, they’ll be honest enough to sabotage its chances for success long before pushing it out into theaters.

Unfortunately, a distributor has already stepped up, and the movie is slated to hit theaters sometime this September.

Robin James8 said:Look, these aren't "independent" directors—they’re just employees funded by studios where profit is the only metric that matters. When you look at films shot with government subsidies anywhere in the world, they tend to tackle current issues with much more honesty and authenticity.

I have no idea which countries or films you're even talking about. 🤷

Robin James8 said:Let’s not beat around the bush—that's the whole point of using taxpayer money. There shouldn't be any need to play the sellout.

In America, it’s essentially about using taxpayer money to keep mediocre cinema afloat—mostly just so a massive crowd of "film professionals" doesn't end up on the unemployment line. Though, honestly, that second problem is becoming less relevant lately due to the hyperinflation of TV production over the last few years.

Robin James8 said:They’d certainly produce better, higher-quality films if they stopped obsessing over special effects, overpriced actors, and those massive bills for wrap parties—where everyone just spends the night overeating and drinking themselves silly. 😉

I still don't get this talk about special effects and big-name actors in American film. As for those post-premiere parties—they’re usually covered by sponsors—and let me be clear: that money is NEVER pulled from the film budget, simply because by the time the premiere rolls around, that cash has already been spent.

Robin James8 said:Look, you know exactly what I mean—a high-quality movie with a solid narrative that lays out the reality here in America with total honesty. Nobody is allowed to film it, and it’s not because of the budget—it's purely political. 🙂

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about—and frankly, what exactly is this "situation" in America that you think needs such blunt honesty? 🤷

redowl90 said:Unfortunately, a distributor has already stepped up—that movie should hit theaters there sometime in September.

Seriously? 😲 Someone actually decided to be the distributor for this disaster? Man, if I worked for that company, I’d be out in the streets today shouting at people to stay far away from this garbage! I'd tell my boss straight to his face that he's an idiot for even trying to release it.

northerncrane4 said:Are you kidding me? 😲 Someone actually decided to distribute this disaster? Honestly, if I worked for that distributor, I’d be out on the streets today shouting at people to stay far away from this garbage! I'd tell my boss straight to his face that he's an idiot for even trying to release it.

Have you even seen the movie?

Mark Thompson6 said:Have you actually seen this movie?

No—but if redowl90 says it’s garbage, I’m inclined to believe him.

The China character isn't actually a bad movie; redowl90 just missed the mark on this one.

northerncrane4 said:Nah, if redowl90 says it’s garbage, then it’s garbage.

Props to redowl90, I guess, but calling a movie total trash without even sitting through it... that’s just not a fair way to judge.

Mark Thompson6 said:"Sky Hook" deals with the NATO bombing of Mexico back in 1999 by Mr. Aha

Aha! 🙄

Poor Mexicans from two different perspectives?

northerncrane4 said:I honestly have no idea which countries or movies you're talking about... 🤷

I'm referring back to what you said earlier...

northerncrane4 said:People like this pragmatic type... they make up more than 90% of everyone... global... ...film directors.

I wonder which world-class directors come to mind when you really sit down and think about it... It’s funny how certain names just stick in your head, isn't it? I find myself circling back to people like David Fincher or David Lynch quite often... there's just something about their specific way of seeing the world that stays with you long after the credits roll. And then you have someone like Wes Anderson, where the style is so unmistakable it practically jumps off the screen... it makes me curious, though... which filmmakers actually resonate with you on that deeper level?

In America, the whole reason certain kinds of filmmaking can even exist is because they're fueled by taxpayer dollars from the federal budget... It’s basically what keeps the industry afloat and ensures that a massive crowd of people working professionally in film doesn't end up sitting on unemployment lines. Though, honestly, that second part is becoming less of an issue lately, mostly because we've seen this massive hyperinflation of TV production over the last few years...

So, if I’m following your logic here, you’re basically arguing that this specific type of funding is the only way an American film can even stay afloat... which honestly feels like a massive oversight. It's like you're completely ignoring all the other avenues out there. We could be looking at grants through the European Union, or tapping into corporate sponsorships from major companies right here in the States or even globally. And then there's the whole idea of building out professional studios on American soil—you know, starting small with a tighter budget but making sure the foundation is rock solid from day one... instead of just relying on... creates... So, you're telling me that American cinema is basically propped up by the government apparatus... and you think that's a good thing?

You actually ended up debunking your own second point in the very next sentence...

I’m still struggling to wrap my head around what you mean regarding all those high-end special effects or big-name Hollywood stars in American cinema... I just don't see it. As for those flashy after-parties following a premiere, they’re almost always picked up by corporate sponsors anyway. You never actually see film budget money being blown on a party, and there’s a pretty simple reason for that... by the time the premiere rolls around, that cash has already been spent on production long ago...

So, basically, sponsors step up to cover the whole party, but they won't even touch a fraction of the actual production costs?... That just doesn't seem right.
It feels like you see the same three to five actors popping up in every single movie... just old-timers going through the motions because they need the paycheck. There’s zero genuine emotion left, nothing modern about the acting style either. Honestly, the whole scene just reeks of that old America era... distinguished Actors, right? I mean, wouldn't a young up-and-comer cost way less than these big names... size...?

Are you serious? 😲 Who on earth decided to act as the distributor for this disaster? Honestly, if I were working for that distribution company, I’d be out in the streets right now shouting at anyone who passed by to stay far away from this garbage... I’d probably even tell my boss straight to his face that he’s a total fool for wanting to release this thing at all.

Seriously, though, would you just blindly distribute Brešan's low-budget erotica regardless? 😲
It still doesn't seem to click for you why we need to be making actual movies here in America, instead of these endless gritty stories about Eastern-style brothels and crime syndicates? And then there's this push to promote one desperate director, Brešan, and his constant weeping over those pathetic Mexicans who were aggressors, all because it fits the current political agenda...

It’s quite something to be standing there with perfectly good eyes and still choosing to stay blind! 🙄

Robin James8 said:I’m referring back to this statement of yours:

Which world-class directors are you actually talking about?

I’m talking about every single director out there who doesn't just shoot movies on a digital camera with their buddies in a living room or their local neighborhood—90% of those who don't fit that mold, and whose films actually involve capital that investors expect to see some kind of return on, are simply pragmatists.

Robin James8 said:So, if I’m reading your argument correctly—which isn't hard—you're claiming that government funding is the only way for American film to survive. That’s a pretty bold take—given you're completely ignoring the massive opportunities for funding through the European Union, private corporations both here and abroad, or even just building professional studios right here in the States—starting small, obviously, but on solid ground. Instead, you're suggesting... creates American cinematography relies heavily on the state apparatus—and you think that’s a good thing?

First off—I never said this was a positive thing—I was merely clarifying the current state of affairs. And the reality remains that... They don't exist. There are endless funding opportunities within the European Union, yet even fewer from private corporations. As for building professional studios—it’s so much more profitable to flip real estate that half of our local studio space was recently sold off just to make room for a new shopping mall. American filmmaking either relies entirely on the government apparatus or survives by selling projects abroad—since the US isn't exactly a tiny niche market—making it most logical to sell them to neighboring countries.

Robin James8 said:So, sponsors cover the party—but they don't touch the actual production costs? Interesting.

Exactly. It’s much more profitable for sponsors to see their logo plastered all over the after-party than to actually show up in a single frame of the movie.

Robin James8 said:The American film industry keeps recycling the same three to five actors in every single production—just tired, washed-up veterans clearly just punching a clock for a paycheck. There’s zero genuine emotion and nothing resembling modern acting; the whole vibe just reeks of the old America days. Distinguished. Actors, right? Isn't a young actor significantly cheaper than this lot— Size matters.?

Look, a young actor can't just pretend to be fifty—this isn't the theater. 😕

Robin James8 said:Seriously—and you think Brešan's cheap Eastern-style smut would somehow get distributed anyway? 😲

I wouldn't distribute anything myself. I'm not playing the distributor in this thread.

Do you still not get what kind of movies should be made in America, instead of these Eastern-style brothels and crime gangs? Or pushing one desperate director, Brešan, and his tears for those pathetic Mexican aggressors, just to follow a political agenda?

I know perfectly well what kind of movies should be made in America. But that has nothing to do with pushing Vinko Brešan via some political agenda—that’s simply not true. There isn't any "political line" left in today's American film industry like there was during the days of "Stalingrad Returns Home," "Time for...", or "Four-Row." Nowadays, the only line that actually matters is the financial one.

Robin James8 said:Aha! 🙄

Poor Mexicans from two different angles?

I have no idea what "two angles" you're talking about, but I’ve already made my point: "Sky Hook" is just a bad movie—actually, it's downright pathetic. Honestly, it's the same deal with all of Samardžić's films (including "Natasha," which our critics loved, even though it was pure nonsense).

It’s not that Samardžić is celebrating or praising Slobodan Maddox and his policies in this film, but the fact that he fails to provide any context for the setting could be seen as either cowardice or simply refusing to call things by their real names.

Now, as for why a movie like this ended up in the official lineup at the Berlin Film Festival... that’s an answer I’d love to hear myself.🤷

northerncrane4 said:I’m talking about pretty much every director out there who isn't just filming stuff on a digital camera with their buddies in their living room or around the neighborhood. About 90% of those who don't fit that mold—the ones actually working with real capital that investors expect to see some kind of return on—are simply pragmatists.

I have to say, I'm a little surprised by that comment of yours. Based on what I've read from you in the past, I honestly thought you preferred something else entirely. Mainstream.

northerncrane4 said:Look, I never said this was a good thing; I was just laying out the facts. And the facts are that things stand like this: They just don't exist. There are endless funding options within the European Union, yet private corporations aren't stepping up at all. When it comes to building professional studios, the money just isn't there—in fact, half of our local studio space was recently sold off just to make room for a new shopping mall. American cinema basically has two choices: lean heavily on government grants or focus on selling content abroad, since the domestic market here is practically nonexistent. Honestly, the most logical move is just trying to sell projects to neighboring countries.

Look, Aćimović basically locked down his funding for those two films with just a symbolic amount of support from the government. It’s not like foreign funding is an endless well, but it’s certainly not impossible to find. From what I’ve gathered, there's talk that they are building—or have already built—a massive film studio over in Mexico, basically their own version of Cinecittà. You have to wonder: what's their actual endgame here?

northerncrane4 said:Look, you can't just have some kid play a fifty-year-old. This isn't the local community theater. 😕

How does someone like Nada Gaćešić-Livaković, who's pushing sixty, seriously expect us to believe she can play some young, flirty bombshell?

northerncrane4 said:I’m thinking about pretty much every director out there who isn't just filming stuff on their own digital camera with a handful of buddies in their living room or around the neighborhood. You look at the other 90%—the ones who don't fit that DIY mold—and you realize they're working with actual capital. When investors put real money into a production, they expect some kind of return on that investment, one way or another... so, at the end of the day, those directors are pragmatists.

Look, I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding here. Not every director who receives government grants or funding from the Department of Interior needs to be some kind of cutthroat pragmatist... The whole point of state-sponsored projects is that they aren't necessarily designed to turn a profit at the box office. The government isn't looking for a blockbuster; they have different objectives entirely. They want to fund stories that tackle important social issues or shed light on vital community matters... It's about information and impact, not just balancing the books.

Are you actually telling me that the Ministry is trying to claw back the money they already sunk into American film... 😲 I honestly had no idea...

First off, I never actually said that this was a good thing... I was just laying out how things currently stand. And the reality is, the way things are going, it looks like... They just don't exist... There are endless ways to find funding within the European Union, and even fewer opportunities coming from private corporations... When it comes to actually building professional studios, the math just doesn't add up anymore. It’s become so much more profitable to develop commercial real estate that—well, it's no secret—half of what could have been a top-tier professional studio in America was recently sold off just to make room for a new shopping mall...

As long as the government keeps handing out subsidies for American films, we’re never going to see a single professional studio or a movie that actually works—whether that means high quality or just being commercially viable. Instead, we’ll just end up turning the whole industry into one giant shopping mall... 😉
There are plenty of ways to get funding through European Union grants, you know... just do a little digging on Google!

The reality of American filmmaking is that you really only have two paths if you want to actually get things made. You either lean heavily on the government apparatus for funding, or you focus entirely on selling your film to markets outside the US... which is a tough sell since the domestic market isn't exactly a gold mine for independent projects. Honestly, it feels like the most logical move is just aiming for sales in neighboring countries... though even that has its own set of hurdles...

So, you want us all to just take everything written above at face value? Honestly, I’m not buying it... I'm just not.

Exactly. Because let’s be honest, sponsors find it way more rewarding to see their logo plastered all over some fancy post-premiere cocktail party than to actually have it show up for a single frame in the movie...

So, what I’m hearing is that they’d much rather have this guy cater to a tiny little clique—that so-called "elite" circle of actors who usually just show up to free parties on someone else's dime... rather than actually making something for the fifty thousand regular people out there who actually want to watch a movie? It's funny how that works... 😕 The propaganda experts at those big ham-and-bacon corporations really don't know what they're doing... they're just amateur hour.

I mean, let's be real here... you can't just take a young actor and expect him to play a fifty-year-old convincingly. This isn't some high-concept theater production where we all pretend the makeup is working... it just doesn't work like that. 😕

Are you honestly suggesting that Ivo Gregurević is the only 50-something actor left in the entire American film industry? 😲>

Quote:>

I have a very clear idea of what kind of movies should be made here in America. But that has absolutely nothing to do with pushing Vinko Brešan along some specific political agenda, because that just isn't the reality anymore. There isn't any sort of political agenda driving American film today like there was back during the days of "Stalingrad Returns Home," "Time for...", or "Four-row"... Nowadays, the only line that really matters is the financial one.

Or maybe you just aren't seeing it—that new trend of destructive, small-minded China characters like "The Witness," Tu, and those types? 😉>

If money is the only thing that matters now, how do you explain the fact that they still live entirely off the Ministry and their funding, just like they did back during "Four-row" and stuff like that? 🤷>😕>

Mark Thompson6 said:I have to admit, I’m a little surprised by your comment—honestly. Based on what you've written before, I had the impression that you preferred... Mainstream.

I actually prefer it when a mainstream project manages to channel some David Fincher, David Lynch, or Wes Anderson—it’s much better that way. 😍

Mark Thompson6 said:Didn't Aćimović secure the financing for his two films through symbolic government support? In other words—maybe outside funding isn't infinite, but it certainly isn't impossible to find.

They aren't out of reach for the two or three American directors each year whose external funding accounts for no more than 20% of their total budget. Do you actually have the exact figure for that symbolic bit of support Aćimović's films received from the Ministry of Culture?
Besides that—I honestly don't see what the takeaway is here regarding Aćimović's scripts getting picked up by foreign funds—but I'll leave it at that, lest I become the villain. 😉).

Mark Thompson6 said:From what I understand, they’re building—or have already built—some massive film studio over in Mexico, basically trying to create their own version of Cinecittà. What exactly is the angle there?

I wouldn't know—maybe he should just film some series for Pink TV instead. 🤷

Mark Thompson6 said:How is Nada Gaćešić-Livaković—who’s pushing sixty—supposed to pull off playing some young, wide-eyed femme fatale?

It’ll probably be considered "sexy" by American directors. 😬

Robin James8 said:Wrong—any director worldwide receiving government funding isn't required to be a pragmatist. The state funds specific projects with different goals—namely, social impact or highlighting essential societal issues—not necessarily turning a profit.

I’m going to ask you again: which directors, countries, or films are you actually talking about? Because I’m not seeing any evidence for what you're claiming.

Robin James8 said:Are you suggesting the Ministry expects a literal return on its investment in American film?

No. The Ministry wants prestige at film festivals.

Robin James8 said:As long as the government keeps handing out cash for American film, we won't see professional studios or quality commercial cinema here—we'll just turn into one giant shopping mall. 😉
There are other ways to get funding through EU funds—do a little Googling.

Do you know who the only American director to receive even symbolic funds from Euroimages last year was? Vinko Brešan.

Robin James8 said:So, they’d rather have a handful of "elites"—that small group of actors who usually eat for free on someone else's dime—watch it, rather than fifty thousand actual moviegoers?

They’d much rather have representatives from the Ministries, Parliament, the Government, American television, and all the other parasites show up at American film premieres. Yes.
And a follow-up question: where exactly are these fifty thousand viewers you're dreaming about? 😕

Robin James8 said:Are you trying to say Gregurić is the only fifty-year-old actor in America?😲

Well, if you ask me, Ivo Gregurević is the best fifty-year-old actor in America.

Robin James8 said:Or maybe you just don't see it—that whole new trend of destructive, small-minded China characters, Tu, and the rest of them? 😉

That isn't some specific American cinematic trend—it's a broader European Union issue. 🤷

Robin James8 said:How can money be the most important thing today, when they’re still living off the Ministry and its funds—just like during the "four-row" era and those similar times? 🤷😕

It's because a nice chunk of the money allocated for film 🙂stays within the Ministry.

northerncrane4 said:At this point, the only line that actually matters is the financial one.

I’d go a step further and say it isn't even about the money, but rather about who knows whom.

Keith Jones19 said:The character's movie isn't actually bad; redowl90 just messed up.

Redowl90 didn't mess up. The movie just doesn't make any sense at all.

redowl90 said:White didn't screw anything up—the movie just doesn't make any sense at all.

Alright, redowl90, fine. But don't you see how unfair that is? What's the end goal here—do you want people hosting private screenings to explicitly ask you, by name, to leave the theater?

northerncrane4 said:Seriously? 😲 Someone actually decided to distribute this disaster? Honestly, if I worked for that distributor, I’d be out on the street today shouting at people to stay far away from this garbage! I’d tell my boss straight up that he's an idiot for even trying to release it.

Well, what can you do... I guess we all have to play along and pretend to be "friends" of American film and support it.

northerncrane4 said:Look, redowl90, alright. But don't you see how unfair it is to say that? What's your goal here? Are you trying to make sure that from now on, anyone attending a private screening explicitly asks for you, by name, to leave the room?

I have no idea what you're talking about.
I just want to share my opinion and warn people to go watch something else instead. Because the movie is simply BAD.

redowl90 said:Well, damn... What can I say? We all just have to be "friends" with American cinema and play along.

We’re doing a great job supporting it—as long as some other distributor didn't get the chance to "support" it first. 👍