Why Being Anti-Hollywood Is Just Another Prison

Why Being Anti-Hollywood Is Just Another Prison

Of course, for many filmmakers being independent is everything. Being able to produce their own work without interference and without being subjected to the sheer boredom of going down the industrial route is of paramount importance to them. With developments in technology and the way the internet is going, it’s  easier than it’s ever been to make a viable feature film. But that’s just the point, we do actually have to make films.

For many of those filmmakers who want control, who see themselves as operating outside of any mainstream construction of filmmaking (whether that be aesthetically or financially) , the danger is to slip in the gap between two worlds: on the one hand refusing to endure the compromises of the commercial path, and on the other bemoaning the fact that they lack the resources to make work, and so in the end nothing gets done. The point is, although they take an “anti-Hollywood” stance, they still bind their outlook to commercial modes of thought (ie – a movie requires a certain aesthetic, a certain amount of budget, a certain crew size, a certain kind of distribution etc). It’s just another kind of prison, only this time the filmmaker has constructed it himself rather than allowing somebody in an office to do it for him.

If you’re going to reject the prevailing way of doing things, then you have to go all the way. Being anti-Hollywood or anti-anything is just not useful.

YOU HAVE TO CREATE RATHER THAN OPPOSE. You have to create something completely new: new aesthetics, new methods of production, and new ways of engaging the public. The strictures of commercialism can be a prison but a rejection of them can be too. Create something new.

If you want to know a filmmaker who has been creating his own thing for years, might I direct you to the website of my good friend and collaborator, Rouzbeh Rashidi, who has a prolific output as well as an audience.