Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Mar 8, 2013.
Yes, but that isn't the film we're discussing.
You seem to have your mind firmly made up that this is going to be an insensitive, exploitative movie that expresses no sympathy or understanding for the victims of gang culture. I find that all the more remarkable seeing as to date you've not seen one single second of footage.
I'm guessing you don't know much about the director either, because those kind of movies are hardly her hallmark:
Perhaps I'll be proved wrong, but I'm happy to give this the benefit of the doubt, no matter how unfashionable that may seem around here.
Some background to the film-makers.
Wow. It is groundbreaking. Traditional Manichean notions of feminine duality, challenged at last.
'Collaborators' - which basically translates to they aren't even being paid for it!
Who trousers the funding they're after then?
This sort of thing boils my piss because they're going to 'change the lives' of a handful of youngsters without addressing why their lives are like this in the first place. All the kids need in life is some experience of the film industry and everything will be ok from here on in.
I think the project she runs sounds great, but from the trailer it looks like the same old rubbish tbh.
But if it's giving kids some experience at the same time then good luck to her.
If kids are doing it 'for experience' but presumably the director and producer are being paid, how is it any different than workfare?
we are discussing a film that's not been made yet, so seeing some previous work might be a good guide
Then again it might not...
... This fence, 'tis not very comfortable
On another note, all the people flaming this woman down, do you really see no value in what she's doing? She seems to know the community in depth and care about it.
that sounds crap. and boring.
There's loads of good films that don't rely on violence to have a good narrative.
Of course I can. It just reminds me a bit of Boris Johnson though. Over Christmas I had my gf's brother telling me that he thought Boris was a 'genius' because he's opened up youth centres to try and combat gang violence. I just didn't even bother responding. They need prospects, jobs, not table fucking tennis. And despite what good she's doubtlessly doing, I just kind of file it off into the same pigeon hole, rightly or wrongly.
I don't see why there can't be both. Perhaps you should volunteer at youth projects to see what it can do for young people, you are being incredibly dismissive of youth work and what it does.
I'm not. I'm being dismissive of Boris Johnson offering to fling a sardine or two at the poor in order to placate them when he can't possibly offer anything more as his wealth relies on there being poverty. It's galling. And other people who dip their noses into poverty in order to extract something out of it for themselves. Is this woman a volunteer? If she is then I'll shut up. But I still don't like the perpetuating of stereotypes that these films get their appeal from.
Also the confidence they get from being in projects like this could be the difference between having a dream and having no hope? Maybe naive, but sometimes these things do make a big difference.
I do see Citizen66's viewpoint, but maybe we need to be less jaded, and more optimistic, like da yoof !
Because (a) it's totally voluntary and (b) some kids are actually mustard keen to get involved and ( c) it gives kids from poorer backgrounds the opportunity to get involved in interesting projects that might normally would be out of their reach.
So you're making the assumption that the enthusiastic kids who are being mentored through the filming process are unable/incapable of learning anything useful from it, yes?
I would have thought that this might provide a wonderful opportunity for some kids on the estates who are interested in getting involved in the film industry. Apparently, you seem to think it's no better than "table fucking tennis," despite what the kids have said in the video.
Ive said people in areas suffering problems associated with poverty need real opportunities and prospects and not just stuff they can volunteer for. Not sure what irks you about that view. Also if the 'collaborators' aren't being paid but director and producer are profiting from it then it's an exploitative working relationship.
Based on that I'll contribute. This is the second crowd sourced movie I've contributed to - the other one is a documentary about the history of capoeira and its African origins (if anyone is interested in helping out with that pm me!)
Reading the info on the project, it says that the material for the films comes from drama workshops - I expect a workshop can be steered towards the topics you want to make a film about.
I would like to see a project which isn't focused on the whole gang culture theme. Is the only representation of young black people on the screen to do with gangs? (or street dance - )
The costing for making the film looks right and I imagine any money gained would go onto further work. The young people involved will benefit from the experience. And I'm sure the work done with them is just part of a bigger programme of things for them to do.
It's not just young black people who get involved in gang culture...Given the ethnic mix that is London, this has less to do with skin colour and more to do with socio-economic conditions.
Ditto, but what I'm most worried about is that it's based on a real event and that's just shit for the families directly involved. I seriously doubt it has their blessing. I think it just piles on more pain.
I was listening to a programme about African film. Crowd sourcing was discussed on it. Looks to me that Crowd Sourcing is partially a way to advertise a film. It gets it discussed before its made.
As on this thread. Crowd Sourcing does not give a return other than a T shirt. So the programme also discussed that this can be taking advantage of peoples good will.
Crowd Sourcing is the latest thing.
What I think would help Crowd Sourcing is if it meant that the film makers entered a dialogue with the "Crowd" so that they could comment- as here- on the film as its being made.
Financing film is controversial subject. It can be used as a vehicle for tax planning. So a canny investor can make sure that if a film does not make money they can write off it off in there tax. If it means that films get made then I do not see the problem.
There are similar funding sites for bands. People can back new bands whose music they like and who need cash for recording. If the required amount (50k I think) is raised the bands are guaranteed a contract. The difference is that the original investors retain an equity stake.
Do people really expect some stake if they contribute $10, $20??? Really? What's happened to just helping something get done for the sake of it? Why does there have to be something in exchange?
I think that people who contribute real money do get to have a stake anyway (Producer?))
Edit: just read it more carefully... Maybe people contributing real money perhaps should have a share of the profits. Doesn't look like they do. But then again maybe no profit is made.
The theatre has a long tradition of this kind of funding. Theatrical funders are called angels. Difference is that very little theatre makes money. Unlike indie film, you can't sell on to bbc4 or get a dvd deal. End of year awards ceremonies are no good to you if the play closed a month or more ago and everyone is doing something else.
So it's been a long term need for theatre to benefit from altruism.
TBF, you did describe it as 'groundbreaking' in your thread title. I think a slightly more circumspect approach on your part would have produced a more nuanced response.
I suppose there are two approaches in deciding what project to pursue as a film-maker: one can either look at the totality of current and recent production, and decide objectively what is most needed at that particular time, or one can allow oneself to be inspired by the stories or events one happens to come into contact with. I don't think there is anything wrong per se with following the latter approach, but of course this way of working always leads to the danger that people will say, well, that might be interesting to you, but we've heard it all before.
I haven't personally seen any films of this type with a female protagonist. However, the situation reminds me of what Germaine Greer (and others no doubt) say about the difference between equality and liberation - on the one hand it's a sort of progress to show that girls can be central to this sort of story, but on the other, it may be that the whole genre was artistically bankrupt and socially unhelpful to start off with, and that such a film merely acts to provide parity of harm.
That was my initial reaction after seeing the video about the proposed film and watching the testimonies from the kids involved. That's only my opinion though, and others are free to form their own.
Then don't criticise other people for expressing an opinion! If there's enough for you to decide it's 'groundbreaking', there's enough for others to dcide it's a pile of shite - or, as I would see it, there's not really enough to support either of those views.
Yet another film depicting young urban kids as gangsters/fuck ups etc...
Separate names with a comma.