Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Speaking of exploitation

This intrigues me. I'm not entirely sure which side of the fence I'm on here.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 30th, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC)
Porn of the Dead
Mar. 30th, 2006 03:49 pm (UTC)
something about Randy Quaid's facial hair really makes me want to hold him down and force him to shave.
Mar. 30th, 2006 03:54 pm (UTC)
"To be sure, Mr. Quaid's role in the Oscar-winning film was tiny, and few would attribute the success of "Brokeback" to the handful of minutes he spends on screen."

Quaid's handful of minutes were my favorite parts of the flim. Randy Quaid peeping through his binoculars at Jack and Ennis as they wrestle shirtless? Randy Quaid telling Jack he paid them to watch his sheep not "stem the rose"? Comedy gold. Pay the man.
Mar. 30th, 2006 04:30 pm (UTC)
There's no ethical gray area here. The studio wanted a low-budget picture they knew they could market the hell out of. They couldn't get the talent for the bargain price if they shilled it as a studio picture, so they push it through the arthouse division. The practice is shoddy, and all those involved should keep in mind they are dealing with the devil when engaging these projects.

Would Randy be filing if the film flopped? Probably not. But it didn't, and it should be able to afford to give a pittance to the actors.

That said: Quaid needed to negotiate a specific contract, rather than settle for something vague then claim he was duped.
Mar. 30th, 2006 04:51 pm (UTC)
Looking for ethics in Hollywood is like looking for absolution in a whorehouse.

The ethics aren't the thing for me. I think that the actors should be paid, particularly when the film makes a whopping amount of money, and yes I do think that Quaid should have negotiated a better contract. Union scale isn't exactly a pittance, but when you've been negotiated down to accepting a lesser amount on the grounds that the movie won't make any money and the studio turns around and spends $30 million marketing it, yeah, that is an issue.

That's not the quandry for me. It's more the destruction of the "arthouse" film in the process. Realistically, if I'm ever going to get theatrical release for a film, it's likely to be in that "arthouse" category, and when the studios fuck with that system in order to make the bucks, it messes with the chances of the independents to get in the door.

Which is probably an intentional side effect of the studios. They don't want independent films, because they threaten a tiny portion of their bottom line.

I don't think that the future of motion pictures is going to be tied to theatrical releases anyway. The studio system is killing theaters across the country, and with the advent of higher technology, more people are staying home and watching DVDs and high-def.
Mar. 30th, 2006 05:11 pm (UTC)
it's a tough call
I have a hard time feeling sorry for Randy Quaid.

he's been around the block and knows how to play the game.
or he should.

but being payed fairly is obvious, manipulative studios raking in riches is bad.

on this, Randy learns an expensive lesson is what I think.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

April 2012


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow