Great film, but no market for it: Sorry...

[steve hyde]

I'm glad you brought up the idea of "valid conclusions" because I think we have a tendency to over emphasize the importance of conclusions in discussions like this one. ..........

Agreed. That is why I previously noted that "power" comes in a variety of forms. To presume a product has a lack of success because of one influence over another is presumptuous without data to back it up. For all any of us knows, "Irag in Fragments" is on the verge of a huge success but who gets to qualify the term "huge success"? I would think only the film maker gets to make that call. He might be happiest if it ended up being nothing more than required viewing in history classes with all proceeds going to the Iraqi people that appeared in the film. In that sense, if a theatrical distributor wanted to release it nationally but the director said no because he would rather see it used in an educational context as described, then the film maker has the power. On the other hand, maybe the film maker would like nothing more than to make a buttload of money to spend on hookers and blow. Success is relative.

In other words I'm not just being a "pompous ass". I have very good reasons for being a "pompous ass."

I don't see you offering a baseless and self-serving insult against a large group of people in an effort to make a distinction where there is none so, no, you aren't being a "pompous ass". On the other hand, that the people you talk to haven't heard or seen anything about "Iraq in Fragments" doesn't speak volumes about its circulation any more than my limited exchange with Nathan speaks "volumes" about my character. I'm not offended but you admit to a limited knowledge about distribution and you know even less about me, personally. A lack of data doesn't create a conclusion by default. It just means you don't know.

Roger

...ok so I have carelessly used this word "volumes". I admit it comes across as overstated. While I don't know you outside of this forum, I have to say that I can come up with many more complementary things to say about your character based on what I do know (generosity, openness, reasonable, intelligent, innovative etc. I could go on) So forgive me if in the throes of argument I made an off handed insult. It was not my intent. Also Nathan's comment was not "baseless."

RE conclusions

Roger,

You keep mentioning conclusions and I'm puzzled why. Did I posit a conclusion somewhere in this thread? Am I jumping to conclusions?
I am not trying to reach a conclusion. I am making a theoretical intervention into the story of the life of a film. I'm not trying to forecast what is going to happen to it. I am interested in the ways that Power silences subversive art.

We could change tack and talk about the exact opposite by looking at the ways that "Harry Potter" does not threaten Power in any way. Harry Potter accomodates Power. "Iraq in Fragments" works to subvert it.
Do you follow that? We don't have to know the outcome or *conclusion* to have a valuable theoretical discussion.

Echoing this statement by Zizek: you don't have to see a movie to posit a theory about it. If you do see it, that might ruin the theoretical intervention.

see link: (it's funny too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kXQzJD8JCU

In the same way, the actual economic outcome for the filmmakers of "Iraq in Fragments" is not the point of this discussion. The point of the discussion is to think about film markets in new ways that move beyond oversimplified supply and demand understandings.

Steve

[MovieStuff]

...ok so I have carelessly used this word "volumes". I admit it comes across as overstated. While I don't know you outside of this forum, I have to say that I can come up with many more complementary things to say about your character based on what I do know (generosity, openness, reasonable, intelligent, innovative etc. I could go on) So forgive me if in the throes of argument I made an off handed insult. It was not my intent.

I realize that, which is why I wasn't insulted. So no apology is necessary.

Also Nathan's comment was not "baseless."

I agree that society, in general, seems to value education less and less but I haven't seen any data suggesting the US values education less than any other country in the world. No data, no basis for the comment.

You keep mentioning conclusions and I'm puzzled why. Did I posit a conclusion somewhere in this thread? Am I jumping to conclusions?
I am not trying to reach a conclusion. .....

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you did set up this discussion with the following salvo:

It is astonishing and deeply troubling that a film as brilliant and important as "Iraq in Fragments" gets washed to the way side because there is no market for it. A filmmaker spends four years *alone* filming in Iraq, obviously risked his life to bring a much needed portrait documentary into the world, wins awards at Sundance, has a limited theatrical run, then gets nominated for an Academy award and then......nothing! Nobody wants to touch it.

Right off the bat, there are several conclusions. #1 is that it is brilliant and important. #2 is that it is a needed film. #3 is that nobody wants it. I happen to agree with #1 and #2 but that's academic; others might disagree with your opinion or mine. "Brillant" is subjective and "needed" is relative to what others think is important in their life at any given moment. The rest of your discussion is based on an assumption that #3 is a valid statement. But if #3 is a valid statement that "nobody wants it", can that also include a prospective audience? As I noted earlier, what an audience needs to see and what they want to see are often mutually exclusive. Is a distributor guilty of anything simply because they might know the pulse of a war-weary public? This is obviously a rhetorical question but addresses one of the underlying thoughts within this discussion: the idea that there are forces at work beyond simple supply and demand. If the film is good now, it will still be good later on when the public is more ready to face its own demons. Sure there could be more sinister forces behind its lack of success -however you wish to define that- but it could also be he made a film that makes people uncomfortable. Most good medicine tastes bad, I've found.

Roger

[fritzcarraldo]

I don't know this film but the issue is surely very troublesome, Iraq isn't a very popular theme these days,

But, what does the market has to do with it all?

If the film was shown, if it even won some awards is still very positive for the director, unfortunatelly we live in a economic-orientated world, but there is much more important things on this planet, not to mention in all the universe,

He made it, he filmed, edited, shown it, that's the best prize a director should have

[MovieStuff]

He made it, he filmed, edited, shown it, that's the best prize a director should have

Perfect. That's exactly right.

Roger

[npcoombs]

He made it, he filmed, edited, shown it, that's the best prize a director should have

Perfect. That's exactly right.

Roger

Er, no, for a political filmmaker, political change and discourse is what is aimed for. All this about merely showing a film ignores every single conceivable issue facing film making today. It is new age bollocks.

[MovieStuff]

He made it, he filmed, edited, shown it, that's the best prize a director should have

Perfect. That's exactly right.

Roger

Er, no, for a political filmmaker, political change and discourse is what is aimed for.

A political film maker with an agenda of change isn't making a true documentary, in my opinion. He's making a commercial to "sell" a concept with an obvious bias. It may stir up discussion ala Michael Moore but is a commercial masquerading as a documentary. The degree of discussion it generates doesn't elevate the film in status any more than Monday morning water cooler discussions do about Sundays' Superbowl commercials. It isn't film making for the sake of film making or even for the primary benefit of the public but, instead, film making for the calculated benefit of the film maker that has a vested interest in the product, be it political or financial.

All this about merely showing a film ignores every single conceivable issue facing film making today.

Since long before you were born or picked up a camera, the fact is that most movies do not find release or make money. So, in many ways, a true film maker does it for the same reason that any true artist does: for the experience of the journey and the satisfaction of having an appreciative audience.

It is new age bollocks.

Not really. If you're expectation for making a film is for some sort of reward in the form of financial or political gain, then you are less of a true film maker than someone like Ed Wood that did it for the joy and love of the movies, even if he wasn't very good at it. You can do it for whatever reason that pleases you but your own expectations about its success may play a bigger part in your satisfaction than "every single conceivable issue facing film making today". There's nothing wrong with making money off of a film. However, there's nothing "new age" about the reality that most film makers don't make a dime.

Roger

[npcoombs]

Film making always expresses a bias or position. Sometimes in a very overt way (michael moore - campaigning filmmaking). Great filmmakers do not want to just show to people they want to affect people. Its not about money for the greats.

[mattias]

Film making always expresses a bias or position.

i agree but isn't it that expression then that is the purpose, not the effects of it? maybe i'm splitting hairs since if it's well expressed it will reach through, but conceptually there's a difference.

politics suck anyway. whether somebody's depressed or happy and the inner dynamics of that is much more interesting than whether they are rich or poor, black or white, or live in peace or war. then again i'm a nihilist so who am i to say what's more interesting. if somebody enjoys caring about the world, fine.

happy b-day btw. :-)

/matt

[npcoombs]

[
politics suck anyway. whether somebody's depressed or happy and the inner dynamics of that is much more interesting than whether they are rich or poor, black or white, or live in peace or war.

I think the two are probably not mutually exclusive...thanks for the congrats

[MovieStuff]

[
politics suck anyway. whether somebody's depressed or happy and the inner dynamics of that is much more interesting than whether they are rich or poor, black or white, or live in peace or war.

I think the two are probably not mutually exclusive...thanks for the congrats

Oh, dude! Is it your birthday? Hey, we can disagree across the board but I can still wish you a happy birthday. Have fun.

Roger

[npcoombs]

Oh, dude! Is it your birthday? Hey, we can disagree across the board but I can still wish you a happy birthday. Have fun.

Cheers! I'm at work : (

[steve hyde]

...This point about *political bias* is worth unpacking a bit. I think Roger and I view this word *politics* differently. I am often accused of seeing everything as political. Then I'm told my view renders the "political" meaningless. I really do see all human actions as political actions because all actions have an effect on the polis (e.g. the city, state, nation-state, world) It is pretty obvious that human behaviors ripple through geographical scales. Sometimes in subtle ways at other times not so subtle. Just take the consumption of natural resources as an example.

This is why it is my view that.... and now I'm echoing Henri Lefebvre, Life is a political project and the only political project that makes any sense is life.

Filmmaking is a political choice.

If I make commercial spots for "The Gap". That commercial has a political outcome.

If I make polemical documentaries like Michael Moore, that documentary has a political outcome.

If I make a feature film like Harry Potter, a political outcome and so on..


There is certainly no such thing as an *objective* documentary that uncovers untainted truth about something. Documentaries are points of view and that point of view has to come from *somewhere*. The point of view is first shaped by filming choices and then second by editing decisions and in the end any documentary is a *subjective* point of view.
All documentaries are fiction.

One more word about "politics." In the United States and elsewhere we have a problem of fetishes. What I mean is we fetishize politicians. When we talk about politics we are constantly pointing our fingers away from ourselves... (e.g. the problems of the world are the fault of George Bush and so on) It's easy and it's fun to blame. It is one of the great fetishes that keeps citizens from discussing what is really going on. What is really going on is the exercise of Power - in and through - the practices of every day life though dominant ideology, cultural hegemony, the disciplining effects of governmentality and otherwise the reduction of citizens to cow-like consumers that cast a few votes every couple of years and call that participating in the political process.

Art can be resistance or conformity or something in between. If an artist leans too far to the side of resistance they will be banned, censored or blocked by other means. If an artist strives for something in between resistance and conformity they have better chances at financial success.
If they choose total conformity (Harry Potter) then the chances are even better.

In other words conformist filmmakers get the rewards. Fox News and CNN get the advertising contracts and so on and in the end we end up with a cultural landscape that is highly *biased* to meet the needs of "the Powers that be." The cultural landscape oozes the bias of the media and shapes choice.

Sure, we can argue that "Iraq in Fragments" is an artistic success. It certainly is, but the point is that it is not coming to "a theater near you." It is being blocked by cultural forces in the film market.


Steve

[steve hyde]

image source and full text of the Essay by Guy Debord linked below:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/index.htm














Steve

[mattias]

I really do see all human actions as political actions because all actions have an effect on the polis (e.g. the city, state, nation-state, world)

i always saw it the other way around, as the effect the "polis" has on people. to be a politician is to take the role of the "polis". i'm not interested in that.

as for whether people can be depressed because they are poor or racially discriminated, i obviously agree. but the line between that it is so and why it is so is very clear to me. movies about people with problems aren't necessarily political.

/matt

[audadvnc]

There's the trick. Problems in the human realm are a result of human nature, which sometimes but not always gets expressed in the public sector.

Certainly a love story can exist independently from any overarching political framework; boy meets girl etc. can occur in a pagan tribe or technocracy with no change of plot or theme, just a little societal backstory to set the scene.