Woody Allen 'genius' or 'shit'?

[youngian]

It's had very good reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blue_jasmine/

David Thomson reckons it's his best ever.

http://www.tnr.com/article/113818/blue-jasmine-review-david-thomson#

He's doing a US film again after doing his penance making a few bob in exile. Unusual to see him on the West Coast though. Looks well cast with Alec Baldwin as a slimey con man. And Sally Hawkins as well.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I really enjoyed Midnight In Paris; I thought Owen Wilson pitched his part just right.

I agree, I think Wilson does quite a good Woody, and it's nice to see him not doing a wacky kidult film.

 

[Reno]

He's doing a US film again after doing his penance making a few bob in exile. Unusual to see him on the West Coast though. Looks well cast with Alec Baldwin as a slimey con man. And Sally Hawkins as well.

He wasn't doing penance, the reality is that for film-makers like him it's almost impossible to get funding in the US. All the US film-makers who are closer to the art house side now get most of their money from Europe, because that's where most of their audience is. The condition is that often they have to shot their films where the money comes from, giving jobs to local talent. After his deal with DreamWorks finished, he went to Europe for funding. His first European film Match Point was supposed to take place in Manhattan, but was re-written to take place in London when he got UK money.

Even after the scandal he still made films in the US for years, before Hollywood decided to put all their money into mega-bucks superhero films only and not fund medium and low budget films anymore.

 

[youngian]

Even after the scandal he still made films in the US for years, before Hollywood decided to put all their money into mega-bucks superhero films only and not fund medium and low budget films anymore.

Yes he did as he is was economical and could turn out the odd crowd pleaser like Small Time Crooks and Everyone Says I Love You. That seemed to halt after the Millenium. But after Matchpoint, Vicky Christina and Midnight in Paris he is probably bankable again. I will not be shocked to hear the funding of niche films is off the Hollywood agenda completely but I would like to read up more if you have any links.

 

[Reno]

Yes he did as he is was economical and could turn out the odd crowd pleaser like Small Time Crooks and Everyone Says I Love You. That seemed to halt after the Millenium. But after Matchpoint, Vicky Christina and Midnight in Paris he is probably bankable again. I will not be shocked to hear the funding of niche films is off the Hollywood agenda completely but I would like to read up more if you have any links.

There has been a lot about it in the press recently, especially after Steven Soderbergh said he would quit films, because it has been impossible for medium budget directors like him to get projects off the ground, because Hollywood pools all its money into mega budget projects. Other US prestige directors like David Lynch already gave up a few years ago.

Interestingly it was Spielberg and Lucas of all people who got this a lot of attention when they recently went public how even they had problems getting smaller, non-high concept, non-franchise films off the ground. They think this high risk gamble is headed for a melt-down and there has been more talk about this when some highly anticipated and hyped films either underperformed or flopped disastrously this year.

So what we get from the US are either mega-budget films like Pacific Rim or ambitious micro-budget films like Upstream Color where nobody working on them really gets paid. And then you get the rare mid-budget, old-school Hollywood style film like Ron Howard's Rush, which are entirely Europe funded.

I've linked to some articles here, but you can probably find some that go into more detail.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/steven-soderbergh-in-conversation.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...pielberg-predicts-film-industry-meltdown.html

http://www.citynews.ca/2013/07/24/summer-blockbusters-flop-at-box-office/

 

[8den]

There's a fantastic article I read recently about the Mia Farrow/Woody Allen divorce and his subsequent relationship with his "daughter" (I know she's not his daughter). And he comes off as even creepier than you thought possible.

Woody Allen made tremendously good films in the 70s and 80s (I remember coming across Sleeper as 12yo late night on tv and thought it was the funniest film I'd ever seen). Very few film makers have made tremendously funny and warm and smart and beautiful films.

But I defy anyone to say hand on heart that the past decade(s) have been a creatively good period for Allen.


As to Soderbergh and his pessimism, I think and it'd a cliche that TV is the new low to medium budget cinema, the problem is for many of us, we're not out of the generation of the "writer-director" auteur era.

Back in the 40s/50s/60s the producer was king, he hired the writer, the director came on board and was a hired hand, and television is still like that, now even more so. We have writer/producer showrunners making great tv and the director is not influential in this world. In the world of HBO the director is the guy who turns up on set shoots the episode in two weeks, gets a week to make his cut, and then it's "it's been nice, but we'll take it from here". I don't necessarily think this a is a bad system, because hey Golden era hollywood made some great great movies, it's just now turning back into the world. People aren't going to see a movie because it's a Spike Lee joint, or a Coen Brothers movie, they're watching for good stories, and I think alot of the best writing is going away to television, or video games. I worked with a writer who specialising in writing huge, $100m plus hollywood blocbusters and he announced he was paid more to write a video game than one of the biggest (and most profitable) blocbusters of this summer.

 

[youngian]

As to Soderbergh and his pessimism, I think and it'd a cliche that TV is the new low to medium budget cinema, the problem is for many of us, we're not out of the generation of the "writer-director" auteur era.

Back in the 40s/50s/60s the producer was king, he hired the writer, the director came on board and was a hired hand, and television is still like that, now even more so. We have writer/producer showrunners making great tv and the director is not influential in this world. In the world of HBO the director is the guy who turns up on set shoots the episode in two weeks, gets a week to make his cut, and then it's "it's been nice, but we'll take it from here". I don't necessarily think this a is a bad system, because hey Golden era hollywood made some great great movies, it's just now turning back into the world. People aren't going to see a movie because it's a Spike Lee joint, or a Coen Brothers movie, they're watching for good stories, and I think alot of the best writing is going away to television, or video games. I worked with a writer who specialising in writing huge, $100m plus hollywood blocbusters and he announced he was paid more to write a video game than one of the biggest (and most profitable) blocbusters of this summer.

And they maybe entering the mid - late 60s type period when blockbusters and high budget musicals, which the studios were gambling on, went very wrong and heralded a golden era because they were desperate to try anyone as long as they were cheap.

Writers have always been low down the foodchain in Hollywood, unlike Britain and now US cable TV, which hires a lot of top directors but the work is being defined by the writer.

 

[8den]

And they maybe entering the mid - late 60s type period when blockbusters and high budget musicals, which the studios were gambling on, went very wrong and heralded a golden era because they were desperate to try anyone as long as they were cheap.

Writers have always been low down the foodchain in Hollywood, unlike Britain and now US cable TV, which hires a lot of top directors but the work is being defined by the writer.

I dunno, while many people decry the big blocbuster summer movies they're still doing remarkably well. It's just a shame they're not gambling on low/mid budget movies. Alot of people are hoping for the Netflix effect, the idea that you can directly market and sell your movie to a online distributor and skip the studio system.

 

[Reno]

There's a fantastic article I read recently about the Mia Farrow/Woody Allen divorce and his subsequent relationship with his "daughter" (I know she's not his daughter). And he comes off as even creepier than you thought possible.

He indeed never was a father in any sense to Soon-Yi and he never acted like one. Her adoptive father, Farrow's ex-husband Andre Previn took that role in her life. Farrow and Allen weren't married and never shared a home. And now he and Soon-Yi have been together for 22 years, married with kids, so it's not like it was a fleeting sexcapade. Which is not to say that what he did wasn't extremely insensitive and hurtful to Farrow, but by now it really should be water under the bridge. And I doubt that there have been any new shocking revelations.

As to Soderbergh and his pessimism, I think and it'd a cliche that TV is the new low to medium budget cinema, the problem is for many of us, we're not out of the generation of the "writer-director" auteur era.

Back in the 40s/50s/60s the producer was king, he hired the writer, the director came on board and was a hired hand, and television is still like that, now even more so. We have writer/producer showrunners making great tv and the director is not influential in this world. In the world of HBO the director is the guy who turns up on set shoots the episode in two weeks, gets a week to make his cut, and then it's "it's been nice, but we'll take it from here". I don't necessarily think this a is a bad system, because hey Golden era hollywood made some great great movies, it's just now turning back into the world. People aren't going to see a movie because it's a Spike Lee joint, or a Coen Brothers movie, they're watching for good stories, and I think alot of the best writing is going away to television, or video games. I worked with a writer who specialising in writing huge, $100m plus hollywood blocbusters and he announced he was paid more to write a video game than one of the biggest (and most profitable) blocbusters of this summer.

Your comparison with classic Hollywood is flawed, because it's business model has completely changed as I said before. Where are all these Hollywood films of different genres and different budgets that appeal to an adult audience now ? Are you seriously suggesting that were are getting the variety of films audiences got in the 30s/40s/50s ? Budgets were spread among many more, many different types of films. Hollywood now is completely different from . One difference is that producers then genuinely cared about making good films, while now all they care about is the perfect formula to make money. Read up a little on the producers who ran studios at the time, on someone like Selznick for big budget movies and on someone like Val Lewton for low budget films. These people were artists in their own right. Now we have anonymous bean counters instead.

As your dismissal of writer-directs, are you saying its all their fault because their films aren't commercial enough and that they too should make superhero films ? What's your point there exactly ?

And if your writer friend doesn't get paid extremely well for writing a major Hollywood film then he has no business sense, has been ripped off or he is a liar, though he may well get paid as well for a game, because it is now a similarly profitable industry. You may get shat on creatively as a Hollywood screenwriter, but I know what they get paid and its obscene.

 

[Maltin]

But I defy anyone to say hand on heart that the past decade(s) have been a creatively good period for Allen.

i would say, hand on heart, it has been a very creative period for Allen with him directing (and probably writing) pretty much a film a year for the last 20 years. It's probably pretty incomparable to the creativity of any other director of recent times.

You could argue that the current output is not as good as his early, funny stuff but I found lots of his recent films funny and good and he writes such good roles for the actors.

Midnight in Paris was excellent.

I also really enjoyed:

Vichy Cristina Barcelona
Match Point
Small Time Crooks
Everyone Says I Love You
Mighty Aphrodite

Whilst I've not seen all his last 20 films, all those I've seen seen (13 1/2) have been enjoyable.

Back in the 40s/50s/60s the producer was king, he hired the writer, the director came on board and was a hired hand,

No, in most instances the STUDIO was king. They employed everybody. In certain studios such as United Artists, the producer was more key and obviously there were certain producers who had more clout than others within the other studios.

 

[youngian]

i would say, hand on heart, it has been a very creative period for Allen with him directing (and probably writing) pretty much a film a year for the last 20 years. It's probably pretty incomparable to the creativity of any other director of recent times.

You could argue that the current output is not as good as his early, funny stuff but I found lots of his recent films funny and good and he writes such good roles for the actors.

Midnight in Paris was excellent.

I also really enjoyed:

Vichy Cristina Barcelona
Match Point
Small Time Crooks
Everyone Says I Love You
Mighty Aphrodite

Whilst I've not seen all his last 20 films, all those I've seen seen (13 1/2) have been enjoyable.

On the whole they have, with a diverse tone of work as well. I would add Manhatten Murder Mystery, Sweet and Lowdown, Deconstructing Harry and Bullets over Broadway among his best work over the past 20 years.

It was after Small Time Crooks that he made two or three few bad clunkers (Melinda Melinda, Curse to the Jade Scorpion), and thats enough to make you persona non grati in the film business. He packed his bags and the BBC coughed up for Matchpoint.

 

[8den]

i would say, hand on heart, it has been a very creative period for Allen with him directing (and probably writing) pretty much a film a year for the last 20 years. It's probably pretty incomparable to the creativity of any other director of recent times.

You could argue that the current output is not as good as his early, funny stuff but I found lots of his recent films funny and good and he writes such good roles for the actors.

Midnight in Paris was excellent.

I also really enjoyed:

Vichy Cristina Barcelona
Match Point
Small Time Crooks
Everyone Says I Love You
Mighty Aphrodite

I'll give you everybody says I love you. Thats a great film. The rest no. And Matchpoint was just fucking dire.

No, in most instances the STUDIO was king. They employed everybody. In certain studios such as United Artists, the producer was more key and obviously there were certain producers who had more clout than others within the other studios.

When I said Producer, I meant Studio, back in the day there wasn't a exe producer, associate producer, etc etc etc, the studio head had the producer credit.

 

[Maltin]

When I said Producer, I meant Studio, back in the day there wasn't a exe producer, associate producer, etc etc etc, the studio head had the producer credit.

I don't think that's true. Most of the studio heads were producers and would produce some films and have the credit but not for all films released by the studio.

 

[Reno]

For me his golden period lasts from Bananas to Hannah and Her Sisters. Even his lesser films were great and his best films were classics, of which there are plenty.

From Radio Days to Bullets Over Broadway his work becomes more patchy. There are some duds, though there still are masterpieces (Crimes and Misdemeanours and Bullets most of all).

From Mighty Aphrodite to Melinda Melinda (his last US film for a while) there are more failures and mediocre films than good ones, though I love Everyone Says I Love You. Deconstructing Harry and Sweet and Lowdown are also pretty good.

Of his European films I only really like the first one, Match Point and the rest I find pretty terrible.

 

[Gingerman]

Watched the 2 part doc yesterday,1st one detailing his early stuff was very enjoyable,2nd part which dealt with his later stuff was a bit meh,bit like his career I suppose

 

[8den]

He indeed never was a father in any sense to Soon-Yi and he never acted like one. Her adoptive father, Farrow's ex-husband Andre Previn took that role in her life. Farrow and Allen weren't married and never shared a home. And now he and Soon-Yi have been together for 22 years, married with kids, so it's not like it was a fleeting sexcapade. Which is not to say that what he did wasn't extremely insensitive and hurtful to Farrow, but by now it really should be water under the bridge. And I doubt that there have been any new shocking revelations.

I've been looking and I've found the article. It's beyond damning for Allen.

There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist. In more than two dozen interviews conducted for this article, most of them with individuals who are on intimate terms with the Mia Farrow household, Allen was described over and over as being completely obsessed with the bright little blonde girl.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

Your comparison with classic Hollywood is flawed, because it's business model has completely changed as I said before. Where are all these Hollywood films of different genres and different budgets that appeal to an adult audience now ? Are you seriously suggesting that were are getting the variety of films audiences got in the 30s/40s/50s ? Budgets were spread among many more, many different types of films.

The comparison is the kind of mature different genres movies that hollywood made in the 40-60s to appeal to a adult audience are now being made as tv programs.

As your dismissal of writer-directs, are you saying its all their fault because their films aren't commercial enough and that they too should make superhero films ? What's your point there exactly ?

It's not a dismissal. Look this thread is about Woody Allen, and lets take him as a example. There was a mild case of uproar when Allen moved to the Europe because he couldn't get funding anymore, there was this attitude "oh my god American arthouse cinema is in decline, even Allen can't get his movies funded". Similarly Sodenbergh just donated 10k to Spike Lee's Kickstart (Oh god Spike Lee's on Kickstart etc etc). What I am saying is this, Allen, and Lee had to go elsewhere because their last (few) films weren't just commercial failures but were bad films, and no one wanted to finance them.

I think we're in a post Sundance world. When I say post Sundance, I'm talking about that heady mid 1990s time, were directors went to Sundance with their Indy hit, and it got Studio backing and the next big thing happened. I think the era of the 90s American writer director auteur is dead, and we're trying to fill that void, and the closest we're getting to that is tv. I'm not necessarily saying thats a good or bad thing but it's where we are.

I also think Soderbergh is being a tad disingenuous when he talks about behind the Candelabra, complaining that "studios these days wouldn't fund it". I don't think there ever was a time where studios would back a period gay drama, with the budget he needed and I do think it says something positive
about the industry that HBO did.

In short I guess I criticising this culture of people complaining that because Woody Allen has to go to Europe, or Spike Lee to kickstart, or Soderbergh to tv, to make their stories that we're in some kind of last days of rome of hollywood film making, I just don't see it. After all, all three of them get to make the movies they want, they just have to go about making it a little differently.

And if your writer friend doesn't get paid extremely well for writing a major Hollywood film then he has no business sense, has been ripped off or he is a liar, though he may well get paid as well for a game, because it is now a similarly profitable industry. You may get shat on creatively as a Hollywood screenwriter, but I know what they get paid and its obscene.

I appear to be expressing myself poorly today,

Not my friend my old boss, and I didnt say he was badly paid writing blocbusters merely that computer games pay better.

 

[8den]

For me his golden period lasts from Bananas to Hannah and Her Sisters. Even his lesser films were great and his best films were classics, of which there are plenty.

From Radio Days to Bullets Over Broadway his work becomes more patchy. There are some duds, though there still are masterpieces (Crimes and Misdemeanours and Bullets most of all).

From Mighty Aphrodite to Melinda Melinda (his last US film for a while) there are more failures and mediocre films than good ones, though I love Everyone Says I Love You. Deconstructing Harry and Sweet and Lowdown are also pretty good.

Of his European films I only really like the first one, Match Point and the rest I find pretty terrible.

Did anyone see Celebrity? The one where Kenneth Brannagan plays the thinly disguised Woody Allen. I actually saw that in the cinema, it was fucking terrible.

 

[Reno]

I've been looking and I've found the article. It's beyond damning for Allen.


http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

That's an article from 1992 and it quotes Mia Farrow's deliberate misinterpretation of Dr Susan Coates findings. As a revenge Farrow made sure Allen lost custody of the two children he had with Farrow and she put out word that he was a pedophile, which was a lie. Coates testified that Allen had an 'intense" relationship with his daughter Dylan, but never implied that it was sexual. He is known to be a neurotic man, so he was fussy and neurotic about the wellbeing of his children. Possible understandably Farrow was out for blood and by all accounts went a little off the rails.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html

 

[Sue]

I really enjoyed Midnight In Paris; I thought Owen Wilson pitched his part just right.

I thought it was truly awful. And it won the best screenplay Oscar which is quite incredible...

 

[8den]

I don't think that's true. Most of the studio heads were producers and would produce some films and have the credit but not for all films released by the studio.

I'm really not going to quibble, when I mentioned the idea of producer control in the 40/50/60s I was discussing the idea of studio system. Some of the older guys in the industry would talk how the studio head crew and cast films, picking and selecting crew and actors from the pool like "Well hey Curtiz is finished on that picture in two weeks, we can get him and we have Fonda on loan for two pictures so lets get them and Hayworth together for this picture".

 

[Reno]

I also think Soderbergh is being a tad disingenuous when he talks about behind the Candelabra, complaining that "studios these days wouldn't fund it". I don't think there ever was a time where studios would back a period gay drama, with the budget he needed and I do think it says something positive
about the industry that HBO did.

Just off the top of my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Victoria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torch_Song_Trilogy_(film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_(film)

 

[Kidda]

I've been looking and I've found the article. It's beyond damning for Allen.


http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211

How do they get away with printing something like that? You'd think if someone wrote an article basically saying you abused your child you'd move heaven and earth to wipe them through the courts and get a retraction.

Has Allen done that?

edit: oh hang on, didn't realise there were 8 pages...goes off to read the last 7.

 

[8den]

That's an article from 1992 and it quotes Mia Farrows deliberate misinterpretation of Susan Coates findings. As a revenge Farrow made sure Allen lost custody of the two children he had with Farrow and she put out word that he was a pedophile, which was a lie. Coates testified that Allen had an 'intense" relationship with his daughter Dylan, but never implied that it was sexual. He is known to be a neurotic man, so he was fussy and neurotic about the wellbeing of his children. Possible understandably Farrow was out for blood and by all accounts went a little off the rails.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-doctor.html

Excellent article thank you.

 

[Reno]

How do they get away with printing something like that? You'd think if someone wrote an article basically saying you abused your child you'd move heaven and earth to wipe them through the courts and get a retraction.

Has Allen done that?

He did get his name cleared which was the important thing but I don't think he wanted to drag Farrow through the courts. I think he knew he had hurt her enough. And the Vanity Fair article is careful to present this from Farrows POV and suing VF would have meant involving Farrow further.

Nhttp://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/19/nyregion/woody-allen-says-report-clears-him.html

 

[Buddy Bradley]

I think we're in a post Sundance world. When I say post Sundance, I'm talking about that heady mid 1990s time, were directors went to Sundance with their Indy hit, and it got Studio backing and the next big thing happened. I think the era of the 90s American writer director auteur is dead, and we're trying to fill that void, and the closest we're getting to that is tv. I'm not necessarily saying thats a good or bad thing but it's where we are.

So you're saying that someone like Matthew Weiner is the modern equivalent of Spike Lee or Woody Allen? That's interesting, but surely you also then have to encompass TV "auteurs" like Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams - immensely powerful writer/director/showrunners, and yet they are also at the centre of the "death of Hollywood" superhero blockbusters.

I'm hoping that the current lopsided budget preference within Hollywood for spectacle-franchise movies means we see a resurgence in low-budget, independently financed films - apart from Spike Lee, Kickstarter has also played host to Zach Braff and probably (hopefully) several others that I'm not aware of. I don't think crowdfunding is the answer, but it's part of cinema's search for alternative funding solutions to get non-lowest common denominator films made.

 

[8den]

Just off the top of my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Victoria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torch_Song_Trilogy_(film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_(film)

Seriously bonus points for not mentioning Pricilla I thought that would be the key rebuttal.

I'd argue, to a degree that all of the above are the "gay as a human rights issue" movies (Aside from VV) and not what behind the Candlelabra is about. I would argue that but I've not seen it, so can't comment. I would say that I just don't believe Soderbergh hasn't got ulterior motive for his bitching about hollywood. I mean for fucks sake the man made 3 Oceans films, one of the most bloated derivative franchises of the last 15 years, and suddenly he announces "Hollywood won't let me make my art, I'm off to paint and make TV?" His last few films have included a chick Bourne knock off and a male stripper movie!

 

[discokermit]

matchpoint is a great film.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

and a male stripper movie!

Which, to be fair, was actually really good.

 

[Reno]

Seriously bonus points for not mentioning Pricilla I thought that would be the key rebuttal.

I'd argue, to a degree that all of the above are the "gay as a human rights issue" movies (Aside from VV) and not what behind the Candlelabra is about. I would argue that but I've not seen it, so can't comment. I would say that I just don't believe Soderbergh hasn't got ulterior motive for his bitching about hollywood. I mean for fucks sake the man made 3 Oceans films, one of the most bloated derivative franchises of the last 15 years, and suddenly he announces "Hollywood won't let me make my art, I'm off to paint and make TV?" His last few films have included a chick Bourne knock off and a male stripper movie!

Pricilla was an Australian film.

What difference does it make that they are "gay as human rights issue" films to their financial viability ? You are retrospectively imposing new rules when your point looks flawed.

You are never going to make a successful argument by picking apart individual films by film-makers you personally don't happen to like. Soderbergh, like many Hollywood auteurs has long had a "one for the studio, one for me" deal, so he makes a female Bourne and and Ocean 11 sequel to in turn get more personal projects like The Girlfriend Experience and Che off the ground. But now even the more commercial films he was going to make are difficult to get off the ground, because they don't fit the very narrow expectations of what s a potentially successful film. And it affects a large sector of films that used to get made involving many film-maker, not just a few whose films you don't happen to like. This argument isn't going to be won with "I didn't like Magic Mike anyway", which by the way was a pretty good film.

 

[8den]

So you're saying that someone like Matthew Weiner is the modern equivalent of Spike Lee or Woody Allen? That's interesting, but surely you also then have to encompass TV "auteurs" like Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams - immensely powerful writer/director/showrunners, and yet they are also at the centre of the "death of Hollywood" superhero blockbusters.

But a showrunner isnt a auteur. There's no way you can proscribe auteur theory (which btw is a concept that I think is bullshit) to tv. Essentially auteur theory gave the director total credit for art direction/editing/shot composition/lighting/writing. It's hard to give the idea of a auteur to a exe producer who isn't on set for the shooting of entire episodes.

But if you think about it, I'm sure most people who are artistically literate, know who the show runners of the walking dead/the wire/breaking bad are, but couldn't tell you the name of the director of their favourite episode. Isn't that weird?

I'm hoping that the current lopsided budget preference within Hollywood for spectacle-franchise movies means we see a resurgence in low-budget, independently financed films - apart from Spike Lee, Kickstarter has also played host to Zach Braff and probably (hopefully) several others that I'm not aware of. I don't think crowdfunding is the answer, but it's part of cinema's search for alternative funding solutions to get non-lowest common denominator films made.

Like I said we're in a post Sundance world, where a director could take their low budget film to a SSW or Sundance, have a studio and agent bidding war, and next thing y'know, they've got their hands on the next big thing.

Theres also a technical issue, despite what people were saying 15 years ago, we're still only getting to the idea of a one person doing all the jobs, and what we're learning is that a film were the director is the DOP and Editor, are (unless this person is very skilled) terrible. So between a technology flux, a distribution confusion and financing problem (lets be honest here financing films is a extremely high risk endeavour, theres a reason studios in the 30s only made populist films, they made money hand over fist) we're in a a creative lull.