- Taschenbuch: 24 Seiten
- Verlag: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (4. April 2014)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 1495418480
- ISBN-13: 978-1495418488
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 15,2 x 0,2 x 22,9 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: Schreiben Sie die erste Bewertung
0ne Rupee Film Diaries: Part 2: A Theory of Every Being: A Theory of Every Being (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 4. April 2014
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Anamitra Roy is a writer-filmmaker based in Kolkata, West Bengal, India. He has been one of the co-founders as well as the curator of Little Fish Eat Big Fish, the no-budget filmmakers' collaborative. Born in 1988, Roy started making his first independent short film in 2007 with Sriparna, his wife, soul-mate and co-activist. His only collection of Bengali poems, "Shabdoprokriyakoron," came out in 2008. Till date he has four shorts to his credit and a crowd-funded feature, Aashmani Jawaharat (popularly known as the One Rupee Film Project) as a director and more than a dozen as an editor. He obtained master degree in film studies from Jadavpur University in 2010.
|5 Sterne (0%)|
|4 Sterne (0%)|
|3 Sterne (0%)|
|2 Sterne (0%)|
|1 Stern (0%)|
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
He is talking about true artists, who understand that commercial success is not the same as quality. As he says about himself and his partners: "We are writers, poets, painters. Creative independence is our thing. We never compromised or surrendered to the demands of the market. We never let anyone alter our visions just because he or she could make us popular or rich within six months or so."
We live in a time when large corporations mass-produce crap for the sole purpose of making profit, and then spend millions of dollars on advertising, to fool braindead consumers into believing that they want to buy/read/watch the mass-produced corporate crap. And if the braindead consumer zombie hasn't seen a bunch of commercials for something, he thinks it's worthless or uninteresting.
So if you don't dumb down your book or film to the lowest common denominator, and make it appeal to the broadest possible audience, thereby making it easy to sell to lots of dumb people, then large corporations won't be interesting in funding or promoting it, because there's no profit in it for them.
Roy discusses the nature of crowd funding, no budget film making, and most importantly, art versus consumerism. Although Roy grew up in India, and I grew up in Germany, we seem to be made from the same cloth, because I could relate very well to his introvert left-leaning personality, and his view of the world.
Roy is an intelligent, well-educated man with an intense desire to create art. Something of substance. Something that has meaning. Something that will make a difference. Not to please consumers. Not to make a lot of money, but simply for the sake of the art itself. He is a true artist. To him, expressing himself artistically, and maybe making some people think about what he has created, and possibly making them see the world in a new light, is as important as breathing.
I could relate very well to his thoughts on the rise of vapid, worthless indie film-making, that is really not all that different than the consumerist crap large corporations mass produce. Many large film studios even have indie branches, simply to mass produce corporate crap cheaply.
A lot of these indie-films really have nothing worthwhile to say, and nothing new to contribute to the world. They are merely a shadow, a copy of some successful other film. They're just a bunch of cheap copycats, trying to cash in on someone else's success. Just think about how many bad imitations of the low budget horror film Saw there were.
The same is happening in the book publishing industry. There was a time when only a few rich publishing houses were able to publish a book successfully. But now that everyone has access to desktop publishing and print-on-demand, suddenly every half-witted, talentless housewife thinks she's an author, and writes the hundredth cheap copy of 50 Shades of Grey.
Just because everyone CAN publish a book these days, doesn't mean everyone SHOULD. The world doesn't need 1000 knock-offs of 50 Shades of Grey. I'm not so sure the world even needed ONE 50 Shades of Grey.
And as Roy explains in this short book, the same is true for the film industry. There are mass-produced worthless indie films that have nothing to say, and there are crappy hobby films by people who shouldn't be allowed near a camera. All of them are just trying to make a quick buck. And those two types of indie films, give the true, artistic expression of indie filmmakers a bad name. Their films don't speak to everyone, and may never be commercially successful, because they haven't been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, the way mass-produced corporate fare is these days.
Books like Twilight are not art. They are mass-produced crap that is meant to be consumed by the widest possible audience, for the largest possible profit.
I understand his frustration with academics and mainstream reviewers, who won't leave their comfort zone and discuss or review unknown films that did not first earn recognition from other mainstream sources, and would rather review a book like Twilight, simply because it was heavily promoted and popularized by corporate advertising funds, rather than some unknown work that actually has something meaningful to say.
Anamitra Roy presents some interesting ideas but the reader is left to do the work the author should have ie order those ideas into a logical sequence. Arguments for or against any standpoint lose their impact if not well presented. As it stands it lives up to the title in that these unedited ramblings belong in an unpublished private diary. If the author truly wants us to listen and take heed of his viewpoint then he should present those ideas in the manner that must have been expected of him when he studied for his MA.
In Part 1 I temporarily laid aside my severe reservations about the work as I was quite entertained by the glimpse into Indian life, especially the descriptions of the people he met and his conversations with them.
In Part 2 there was far too much emphasis on the author’s view that he is right and everyone else falls into either an elite group who agree with him, or everyone else, those who are too stupid to understand what he is doing. It would seem I fall into the latter group; I am one of the people with an ‘attitude’ who ‘eats up gossip’ and is prey to marketing techniques, totally incapable of thinking critically or objectively.
The knowledge of the writer as a film-maker shines through and gives a summarised picture of the industry of life.