« Friends' Movies... | Main | A Certain Point »
March 7, 2009
...and their cocentric circles.
IFC commissioned Aaron Hills to update the original family tree he planted back in 2007. You can see the full thing here:
Something like this does little to benefit the films in question, but from a historical perspective it's interesting. At least I hope it will be. I think some people look at all these lines and see a bunch of congratulatory self-servitude; the word 'incestuous' gets thrown about a lot. I'm not so naive that I don't understand where these negative connotations come from, but I also feel they tarnish something that's very intrinsic, very simple and very good. I've always enjoyed helping people out, especially people whose work I admire; and the folks with whom I form strong ties feel the same way. Creativity and generosity aren't mutually inclusive, but in the case of my best friends, we all have plenty of both, and that naturally leads to collaboration. Gravity gives way to chemistry. In the 70s, all the directors who paved those brave paths knew each other and helped each other out, and traded points on each other's pictures. There are no points these days, or any money at all, and no studio system to fall back on, but the physics of collaboration remain the same. That people ultimately find value in our work is a wonderful thing, but that value comes from the work itself, and the work is the result not of the names printed in the credits but the good people who gave their all to bringing it to fruition. Some of the many films I've worked on this past year are on this list, and some of them aren't. I'm equally proud to have been a part of all of them.
Posted by David Lowery at March 7, 2009 1:07 AM
Comments
Valid points David. I believe the rub is in the percieved notion that these films and people have a direct link to getting into certain festivals based on the 'cocentric' circles as opposed to the merits of the films alone.
If true, it would be a black eye for those who hold loyalty as their highest value.
JB
Posted by: Jerry at March 8, 2009 2:07 PM
Yeah, and I suppose that's the cross the zeitgeist has to bear. I know of many movies within the same cross-sections of connectivity that were rejected by SXSW - but it's the ones that get in that are scrutinized. Which of course is as it should be.
With one exception, everyone I know with a film premiering at SXSW this year, myself included, sent their films off blindly and shed no shortage of sweat waiting for a reply. Certain things change once you've had work at a festival in the past, but in the end, there's still no such thing as a sure thing. It comes down to the strange conjunction of the quality of a film and the taste of the committee that watches it. My film has already been rejected from other festivals that different films on this list have been accepted to - and vice versa.
I say that I wish people would see this as a good thing - but I think those that do, or those who find it irrelevant, are content to simply focus on the films. Which, once again, is just as it should be.
Posted by: David Lowery at March 8, 2009 2:27 PM