alex whitmer
Veteran
When I first got into film years ago, rumors were afoot that some projects could take years to complete. Years?! How is that possible? Turns out those possibilities are endless. I think my longest yet-to-be released film is now in its 6th year. Others have hit the two-year mark, the three and four-year mark, and the shelved-indefinately mark. And then there are those that are just jinxed, going into development and pre-prod again and again with the same results: Abandoned, and given back the writer to try all over again. Or a feature turned into a short. Or the filmmaker just lost the original enthusiasm and/or vision after snafus and delays piled up.
Delays can wear many hats. The good delays are often for good reason, and in the film's best interest and merit. Rushing for the sake of fests or moving on to other projects only diminishes the investment each participant made to the whole: that nuance in lighting, that last-minute adjustment to costume, or that symbiotic connect between director and actress. Can't rush that stuff, and sometimes ya jus' gotta digest it a while. Or a year. Or two.
Honestly, I wonder how films get made at all.
Then there are those that go from concept to release with narry a hitch. Six months, often less, and a solid finished product that rocks the fest circuit. How did they do that? I guess sometimes the stars are alighned just right. This doesn't make the 6-month film better than the six-year film by default. Whatever journey the project needs to be a memorable and entertaining story, than that's what we afford it. I think living in the nano-second digital age makes six months and three years seem like an unbearable eternity. All things considered, the technology has not made the process go any faster. It's added more options, but not much else.
Funny, that. And I could be wrong.
Delays can wear many hats. The good delays are often for good reason, and in the film's best interest and merit. Rushing for the sake of fests or moving on to other projects only diminishes the investment each participant made to the whole: that nuance in lighting, that last-minute adjustment to costume, or that symbiotic connect between director and actress. Can't rush that stuff, and sometimes ya jus' gotta digest it a while. Or a year. Or two.
Honestly, I wonder how films get made at all.
Then there are those that go from concept to release with narry a hitch. Six months, often less, and a solid finished product that rocks the fest circuit. How did they do that? I guess sometimes the stars are alighned just right. This doesn't make the 6-month film better than the six-year film by default. Whatever journey the project needs to be a memorable and entertaining story, than that's what we afford it. I think living in the nano-second digital age makes six months and three years seem like an unbearable eternity. All things considered, the technology has not made the process go any faster. It's added more options, but not much else.
Funny, that. And I could be wrong.
