what does murray smith mean by "semi-independant" pictures?
Is he talking about subsidiary companies like Focus Features and Paramount Vantage? Or does he mean independent films with big budgets? or films with a star in them? what is the difference between an independent film and a semi-indie one?
or is he arguing that there can be no successful truly independent films in the U.S. today?
Does "Classical Hollywood" refer to the fordist mode of production, or the style of movies that are produced. Or does it encompass both? If so, is it considered classical hollywood if a film is made with an undifferentiated mass market in mind, but also made outside the ford system? if it is still considered classical hollywood, does this mean that a classical hollywood film could still be made in an era of post-classical hollywood? or would it be considered neoclassicism? maybe i just don't understand the difference between classical and neoclassical.
sorry it's late...
i was feeling horrible yesterday and didn't know if i had something contagious or not, so i just stayed in bed all day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Re: Semi-indie: I believe he is referring to independent features distributed by "mini-majors" (like Fine Line and Miramax in the 90s) or subsidiaries of the Majors (like Warner Independent and Sony Pictures Classics).
Fordism describes an economic model for mass production. So it could be argued that the studios used something like a Fordist model in the organization of their business and production practices. This, in turn, would impact narrative and style. The question then becomes: What are the consequences when the studio system breaks down? Does narrative and style change just because of the move to the package-unit system? We'll continue to look at that question over the next few weeks.
Post a Comment