Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Issue 5

Issue 5

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,484|Likes:
Published by ShootingWall

More info:

Published by: ShootingWall on Sep 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Cinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCin- ema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinem a YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema Ye arOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearO neCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneC inema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCine ma YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema  YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema Yea rOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOn eCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCi nema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCine ma YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema  YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema Yea rOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOn eCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCi nema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCine ma YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema  YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema Yea rOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOn eCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCi nema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCine ma YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema  YearOneCinema YearOneCinema YearOneCinema Yea rOneCinema YearOneCinemaSHOOTING WALL
As cinephiles and ilmmakers we have to demand more of our-selves and of our culture and of other ilmmakers. Complacencyhas become a staple of our culture and ourcinema; our ilm crit-ics and academics do not demand innovation or newcinema,while Hollywood and independent ilm studios continue to
domi-nate and brainwash
audiences both economically and culturally.We irst have to recognize that the current systems and institu-tions have and will continue to
us as long as theirproits soar; they will never give us anything new if we don’t de-mand it. We can complain about our state of affairs(cinematically, economically, and politically) but there comes atime when we have to move beyond complaints and toward ac-tion. If we claim we are or want to be self 
conscious and criticalilm viewers, ilmmakers, and human beings then we need toquestion the status quo at all levels and as much as possible. If we do not believe in thecinemathat we are being given, then wehave to do something about it; we have to try to make and en-gage with bettercinema. The revolution will not come to us; wehave to make the revolution. We should no longer be willing toaccept the kinds of 
regressive and static
ilms that we arebeing fed. If we truly consider ilm to be an art form and an im-portant art form (and we at Shooting Wall irmly believe this)then we have to be willing to ight for it.
Of course, the system does notwant us to succeed; the systemdoes not want nor does it strive forinnovation. If Hollywood madefilms that attempted to do newthings with the cinematic form, thenaudiences would perhaps thinkabout what they are being givenand may like or, even worse forthe system, dislike what they areshown. The prevailing sense inmainstream cinema is to neverrock the boat, not stylistically norin content. The last thing that Holly-wood or so-called independentfilms want us to do is think or en-gage with what we are seeing.Hollywood and the mainstreamhave lulled audiences into a stateof complacency with static and re-actionary cinema; a cinema thatnever challenges the dominate no-tions of how a film should look,sound, or where and how it shouldbe screened and viewed. The pointof capitalism is profit and only that.By creating works that could bepotentially alienating or difficult,
the industry would lose money. It’s
a simple fact and if we want to dosomething more with cinema, toexpand the form or experimentwith it, then why would we wantto use money or support from insti-tutions which have it in their bestinterest to do the opposite? As longas films cost millions and millionsof dollars to make, they will contin-ue to remain uninteresting andstatic both intellectually and stylis-tically.
There is a myth that good or greatcinema should or does appeal to alarge audience; this is simply not
true. Perhaps it’s our democratic
spirit which leads many to believethese naive notions, but needlessto say, we at Shooting Wall, think that great art and great filmsshould challenge our assumptionsof both the medium (cinema) andour lives. We should not be afraidof taking sides in these matters.Hollywood offers us nothing, so
why bother? “Independent” is
simply a genre in America andmost of the films are not madeindependently. The difference between the Hollywood and theindependent establishment is onlya difference in how much thefilms cost and how much moneythey make; there is little differ-ence in modes of production, dis-tribution, or innovation. The inde- pendent film movement grew outof the desire to make films in op- position to Hollywood and yetnow, independent film existssimply as a smaller version of Hollywood. And many filmmak-ers who start off making these so-called independent films see themonly as a rung in the ladder to-ward the excess and stagnation of Hollywood.
Our systems are corrupt. Our systems have become completely inundated
and ruled by money. Capitalism is America’s religion and money is Ameri-ca’s god. No matter where you go or what you do, you have to deal with a
corrupt system run by people whose overriding interest is profit. How canone even function in this country without at some point or to some extenthaving to give our business to a company that says and does things that we
do not support? It’s impossible. Every angle and every aspect of our society 
and our culture is dominated by money and capitalism. So what is our re-course? How can we fight a system so monolithic and so strong? ShootingWall believes that the only way to do this is to no longer work within thesystem. There are still many people who think that we can burrow fromwithin the system, and reform it that way. To put it simply: they are wrong. The system has not gotten so rich or remained so dominate by mistake; Hol-lywood and the rest of the mainstream film community know what they aredoing. They know how to control dissidents and marginalize radical cinema.
The first 120 years of cinematichistory has basically been capital-ism struggling and then finallywinning in its dominance of filmworldwide. They tell us that theseare the films we want: the bloatedand idiotic Blockbusters, con-servative and sexist romantic com-edies, the alarmist disaster movies,and so on and so on and so on. Isthis truly what we want? Is it real-ly? Is there no room for anythingelse? Can we really justify spend-ing hundreds of millions of dollarson a film? A film! We love cine-ma, but do not believe that itshould cost 100, 200, or 300 milliondollars to make a film. Who suf-fers so that Hollywood can spendthis much on a single film? We allsuffer. We suffer economicallyand culturally. And for all of thismoney, they offer us nothing newand
nothing original.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->