I'm reading an excellent book called "The Film Director as Superstar"
Inside it's cheesy 70's cover is a collection of interviews with famous directors
most of whom began with self funded independent films
Reading it has reaffirmed much of what I've seen here
in "hollywood north", the same kind of ripoffs and control
it's amazing.
I've actually liked unions for most of my life.
If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be serfs, not just the majority of us.
Unions grew out of gangs, and gangs are basically unions of poor people
sticking together to oppose the oppression, domination, and thievery of the rich.
Most unions started out from businesses built by gangs that originated from racial discrimination.
So the Italian, Irish, Black, Hispanic, etc. immigrants who encountered hatred and discrimination when they came to north america, banded together to make work for each other and protect their people from ending up in sweatshops.
The book is facinating.
The starting stories of these directors are really similiar to what I've encountered here in this city.
Kubrick, De Palma, Lucas, Polanski, and others all seem to tell a similar story, with some excellent quotes I might add later to this.
Their first couple films had to be made with their own money.
No one wanted them to tell THEIR story.
All the money people, the "hollywood" bullshit, tried to keep them from making their first films
tried to shut them out, shut them up
Because they didn't want anyone else to control their vision
They didn't want to make a film by comittee
they had a vision, and they were willing to work with a small crew of independents to make it happen.
Now they are all superstar award winners.
But in the beginning, their first films almost didn't get made
because of the hierarchical control system of the tinseltown monopolists
and active harassment by film unions.
The film unions pressured each of these directors, even threatening them.
But none of these now famous men could afford to make their first films that way
Hiring union people requires lots of money and a much larger crew
and as soon as someone else pays the money
then the message gets altered
edited
to please the investors
These are men who are now seen as giants in film
innovators, risk takers, visionaries
It wasn't until they had some success with their own work, funded with life's savings, that they could get funding without their work being subject to alteration by a goldmonger.
the groundbreaking eraserheads and dark stars,
would never be made in the hierarchical studio system.
The professional closure that unions create is good for the workers that are represented by a union
but terrible for art itself.
A union doesn't care that it's churning out 20 movies a year that sell guns and death to children
It's people are making money
It doesn't care that someone has a greater artistic vision
If they don't want to submit to the control of the money people
the union itself will help to rip them off.
Robert Cooper is in a union.
So when he shook my hand and agreed to 15-20% of what he made for me on the ideas he used from our consultation, and then subsequently broke that deal, the union stands behind him.
IATSE calls me up and asks me to join.
I wonder why I would?
Most of the movies made in Vancouver are shit films made by committee
2 of my films have now been stolen by people who are union members
hundreds of union people in vancouver know the whole story about him ripping me off and cineworks ripping me of before that.
Ironically, if I had my proper earned credit on both works,
I would be able to apply for the writer's union.
The little girl in the park suddenly points her finger at me like a gun
"I'm killing you" she says
that's what we make for her here....
