MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Losing focus: InDigEnt's shallow grave

As his megadecamillion dollar Charlotte’s Web prepares to open to throngs of Strunk & White-clutching kidlit purists on every corner of the Upper East Side, director-producer Gary Winick sez his underfinanced production entity InDigEnt is no more, reports Reuters’ Larry Fine. It’ll “shut down in January, bringing an end to the high-profile production outfit that championed low-cost, independent and digital movie making,” as Fine kindly describes the enterprise. “I couldn’t keep it together. As of January we’re biting the dust after six years,” indigent_rat_pig_21345.jpg Winick said. “I kind of think we had our moment in time. Unfortunately there is no million-dollar film any more that actually gets in the market place and makes some money because the studios want the Capotes and the Sideways [sic]… they want the $8-million film to make a $100 million instead of the $1-million to make $10 (million). That’s the problem,” he said.” InDigEnt notably used consumer-level cameras to make professional features, with visually disappointing results, including a non-metaphorical lack of consistent focus. Reuters’ Fine remains gullible about the potential of the medium: “In recent years, however, even independent films have become more expensive to produce as more and more stars work in them. And as the movies’ box office has improved, money from the specialty divisions of major studios has raised the stakes.” Winick, like a seer from a past century, sums it up this way, compounding his interest in money: “I think the good news is that the Internet, it’s not there yet, but it’s going to shift something to get independent film back where it will become lucrative again.” Ah, the Internets. Use the Google and become rich in your spare time at home!

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon