Just browsing and came back to this post. I didn’t finish it the last time I read it. Wow. I think that thing that stands out to me (because we’ve already discussed a lot of this) is the image of the festival screener watching a DVD-R and urgently looking for a reason to hit eject and move on to the next film. Why does it stand out? Because it’s human nature. Festivals try to “assure” us that “every film is reviewed in it’s entirety by at least two people.” Bullshit. It’s not human nature to suffer through anything that you really don’t have to suffer through. I accept that. But what pisses me off is that EVERY major film festival says the same thing when they, in fact, know it to be a lie. the other thing that bugs me is the laziness of filmmakers. I think you hit the nail on the head with “his approach required a big down payment in money and shoe leather both.” I see too many filmmakers who think that marketing their film is “someone else’s job” because they’re too busy being an auteur. You’re right: it’s stupid and lazy. Okay, I gotta go now, i’ve got much more to read

Walter Murch has some very insightful things to say about the experience of watching a film in a cinema vs. the experience of watching on a tv at home. Obviously my expectation is that most people will experience our films in the former circumstance, but I try to make them in a way that they offer something to a viewer who sees them in latter circumstance. Being a part of a collective chuckle or sign or murmur is a pleasure that can’t be had at home! –TC