|
|
Post by fattaxi on Mar 18, 2006 1:10:40 GMT
Hey
Just bought the latest Total Film magazine. There is a section called "63 Ways To Improve The Movies".
Number 11 is - "Give these directors more money: P T Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, George Clooney, Kenneth Lonergan, Shane Meadows, Michel Gondry...."
I thought it was a good honour for Shane to be listed with these. About time too.
Well done Shane.
Si
|
|
|
|
Post by marksherbert on Mar 18, 2006 11:52:48 GMT
Wow, thats great.
Who is Kenneth Lonergan?
|
|
|
|
Post by fattaxi on Mar 18, 2006 15:19:31 GMT
....No idea
|
|
|
|
Post by marksherbert on Mar 18, 2006 18:43:55 GMT
I just looked him up on IMDB.
IMDB says he did something with the Gangs Of New York script and some other scriptwork, and that he directed a film called 'You Can Count On Me' that won some awards at Sundance. It looks pretty good.
He must be worth investigating if he's in the same league as Aronofsky, Anderson and of course Meadows.
|
|
|
|
Post by quixote on Mar 18, 2006 19:33:57 GMT
i watched you can count on me i thought is wasn't anything special as for analse this/that i didn't like them at all he does seem to be the odd man out in that list, to me anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Workshed on Apr 7, 2006 15:04:16 GMT
NO NO NO!!! Give all of them less money. All the 'name' directors that ever made a movie produced their best work when their trousers and shoes had holes in 'em. Take Aronowsky for example; 'The Fountain' will have cost the studio well over $100m by the time it gets out and early word is not good. Take Shane, OUATITM is Shane's least focussed and most tampered with pic. Compare it to DMS - done on a shoestring with a small. but handy. crew and 'no stars'. Bingo, we have cinema gold. Shane may have found the perfect partner in Warp and, like Ken Loach, if you learn to play it small then he could have a whole career of relevant auteur driven films. I'd like to see Shane tackle a period film/book. No-one has ever filmed 'The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists' and Shane could bring out the humanity like no other director working today. Stuff sentimentality. Shane knows where the real meat of emotion lies and (especially in DMS) I sense a very real empathy under the surface of anger. The scene in ARFRB where we go back to Morell's house and we see his life in the mouldy wallpaper, ancient settee and rotting milk made me want to cry because that (until Romeo and Gavin roll up) is all the bloke has. No wonder Morrell is nuts. He's probably had 'society' take the piss out of him all his life and the last thing he needs is two little runts taking it a step further when what he really needs is a little bit of love and to be part of a family - something he's obviously never had. His parents probably had him when they were in their early-fourties and, as a result, Morell is left on his own to face the consequences.
Now do you really think MORE MONEY would allow moments like this..? The short answer is NO. Do you think a set designer who is possibly hoping for an Academy Award would make things as starkly bleak as in this scene..? Shane's films reek of authenticity and the more money he gets the further away he'll be removed from experiences of that world. Having the faith of your backers (like the recent decision to give Shane a reasonable sum of dosh for 'pickups') is more important than having a lump sum. Having the mutual confidence of your actors. Having a great script. These are the things that count and a pen and some paper cost a few quid.
Here endeth the lesson.
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on Apr 7, 2006 15:49:14 GMT
he's got a point there
|
|
|
|
Post by fatself on May 10, 2006 21:40:36 GMT
Well, I'm Liam Lonergan...
ok, thanks for that.
Your well interesting Liam.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadmansrockports on May 11, 2006 7:04:20 GMT
Expertly said Workshed, I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on May 11, 2006 9:45:41 GMT
buuut, if shane was given more money, im sure he's spend it on his "King Of The Gypsies" project, which he has said will take a lot of money to be justified and for it to be a good film.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattaxi on May 11, 2006 10:13:21 GMT
Touchee
|
|
|
|
Post by deadmansrockports on May 11, 2006 10:35:03 GMT
Also a good point RYD but with money comes distraction
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on May 11, 2006 13:05:07 GMT
Also a good point RYD but with money comes distraction indeed it does, and i do agree with you, money can spoil things but i think shane would use the money well after what he learnt from making OUATIM. shane is a sensible and down to earth guy, i dont think he would go crazy with the money. i think he'd just use enough for a specific project. dead man's shoes only needed 1 million to be made (the original target was 75,000) but bigger projects like King Of The Gypsies will need alot more, and shane needs the money without bringing in big stars, and having producers telling him what to change. which is often what ruins big budget films. speaking of money, does anyone know what the budget was/is for "This Is England"? |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickCoyle on May 11, 2006 23:35:14 GMT
I've always wondered where the money goes on Shane's films. Not that they're not good or look bad or anything like that, obviously I'm a huge fan - but the aesthetics of the films look like they come from hard work (like Richard Knight's location scouting in DMS), rather than chucking money everywhere. In some of the extras on DMS Shane said they shot with mostly natural lights and minimal equipment, so I wonder what cost a million. Everyone got paid, probably.
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on May 12, 2006 14:07:01 GMT
film stock costs thousands, and so does distribution and marketing (not that it had a lot of marketing that is) but yeah this is where the vast majority of the money is spent. 1 million is a very low budget for a film, even for a british film.
|
|
