Steven Soderbergh donated $10,000 to Spike Lee’s Kickstarter and he just wrote an explanation for that:
The 80s was not a great decade for American cinema; with some exceptions, the filmmakers responsible for the American New Wave that began in the latter part of the sixties had either burned out, self-destructed, or lost their way creatively, and the increasingly corporate-controlled studios weren’t really cultivating the kind of bold, idiosyncratic films that made me want to make films. It felt like the sense of what was possible had shrunk, and I worried about my future. Every so often, however, an independent film (or filmmaker) would emerge that felt connected to both those recent, great American films and to great cinema from around the world, and as I was attempting to find my own voice and place in the film world, three independent American filmmakers in particular attracted my attention and expanded my idea of what was possible; David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch, and Spike Lee. These were distinctive new voices, and the freedom (and success) they represented was liberating and energizing; these were shoulders I would try to stand on, that I would be proud to stand on.
Certain filmmakers exist outside the traditional parameters of criticism; their point of view and body of work make discussions about individual films interesting but ultimately irrelevant because each project is merely a chapter in a very long book that must (and will) be acknowledged and appreciated for its breadth, ambition, and contributions to the art of cinema. For me, Spike Lee is one of those filmmakers. He is a totally unique figure in American cinema, and he’s always gone his own way and spoken his mind (even when the commercial stakes were high), qualities which are in short supply in the film business. I know Spike’s films better than I know Spike (maybe the Knicks game with help with that), but we’re friendly enough for me to say I respect him as person as well as a filmmaker.
So, in case you haven’t figured it out already, this is why I’m supporting Spike on Kickstarter:
1. Spike’s success helped make my success possible.
2. Spike has earned my attention because of his body of work and its distinct point of view.
3. You should support your friends.
Now let’s light this candle!
Peace
SS
Video:
Spike Lee Defends His Kickstarter
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1832710914001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAAEDRq0~,qRcfDOX2mNtZ7AeW3TvdiXVV_r_5XOyz&bclid=0&bctid=2577193730001
He makes a good point. Small filmmakers were kickstarting it before there was the internet.
I still say this is not Spike’s story, it’s a student of his. He may be producing it but I don’t think he wrote it.
Kickstarter allows regular folks to be art patrons.
Thank you, KJBacon – that is all one needs to know, or care about.
I’m a little surprised at the “outrage” expressed here over Kickstarter, whether it’s based on the personality of the person behind the project or the concept itself.
We know what direction corporate Hollywood is taking film, and it’s not good – overblown fantasy sideshows starring once-promising actors flying on auto-pilot.
We also know that film gems that came out of the 60’s and 70’s would have no chance of being greenlit now in the current system. After watching the Criterion release of Medium Cool last night, I was reminded of two things: the need for movies like that now, and the awful fact that movies like that are no longer possible under the current system.
Yet we treat Kickstarter as if it were a hobo camp of panhandlers, when it is actually a golden opportunity to support artists who want to go in a different direction. They aren’t raisng the price of gas or increasing your banking fees – they are only asking if you want to participate in getting their vision on the screen.
Kickstarter allows regular folks to be art patrons. No longer do lovers of art have to be named Rockefeller or Pope Julius II. I don’t want anything back from Lee other than a good movie. I’m in for twenty bucks.
As a person who lives in a country where state finances 99,9% of visible cinema (I call “visible” cinema, even the most hardcore experimental movies that aim somehow to be shown at festivals, alternative circuit, etc; the “invisible” cinema is the hardcore experimental one shot for free with simple digital cameras and avaible in Internet) I can only see fundraising cinema as something good.
My point is: cinema is, nowadays, costing too much, no matter it is independent or mainstream. And I could never be mad against Spike Lee. When, maybe when I remember crap like “Girl 6” and “She Hate Me” . But then I think about “Do the Right Man”, “Summer of Sam”, “Clockers”, “25th Hour”, “A Huey P. Newton History”,“Bamboozled”, “4 Little Girls”, etc, etc, and all become cool again
Michael Cimino should do a campaign on Kickstarter. It seems his budget for his dream project of “Man’s Fate” is 100 million dollars. If he begins now a fundraiser action, maybe in 2097 he could shoot the flick.
Cimino wanted to cast Johnny Depp in Man’s Fate. With a net worth of $350M Johnny could single-handedly write a check to finance Cimino’s film — and still have a quarter of a billion dollars left over to live on.
Hardly likely Man’s Fate could lose as much money as The Lone Ranger is going to cost Disney.
Spike Lee could maybe get a studio to back his movie if he cast Johnny Depp. But then the $1 million budget would balloon to $21 million in order to pay Johnny’s $20M salary.
And yet, the internet is mad at Spike Lee instead of seeing the real problem is people like Depp.
Actually Johnny Depp is one celebrity that I don’t think ever asked for money. Not for some cause or some other nonsense. But I’m fairly certain he has recently taken to sponsoring others particularly by becoming a publisher.
And from what I understand his films have also made 7 billion dollars. Surely he should get his fair share of that considering they are sold on his popularity.
p.s. THE LONE RANGER was a great film. Too bad more people didn’t see it but I believe it was released the same weekend as a kiddie film. Poor people who aren’t donating to Spike Lee have to pick and choose which films to see for financial reasons and they generally choose to take the little kids when they can.
Sure, Depp is kind of the quintessential embodiment of most things wrong with Hollywood, but you could say the same thing about just about the whole industry and most of the A-listers working inside it. Depp insists on getting paid a certain obscene amount of money and he only works within his chosen comfort zone (which is solely Burton and Verbinski films, apparently, PLUS never showing his real face, hiding behinds masks all the time…what’s the guy’s problem??).
But then you have people like Downey Jr, who boasts about making…what?…100 million dollars on an Iron Man sequel (in addition to bitching about having never won an Oscar…for WHAT, you crazy lunatic??). And you just shake your head in disbelief. But let’s not go there. There is a natural (yet extremely distorted) logic to why beautiful people get paid obscene amounts of money for making the world a more superficial place than it already is, but if you think about it too much, it makes you want to drop a massive bomb over Hollywood and just obliterate the whole damn thing.
As to Spike Lee? Is he a problem? I think Lee has said some genuinely stupid stuff down through the years, which (in addition to the ever declining quality of his films) makes him a problematic figure. Just three examples for now: Just recently when he circulated the alleged (turned out to be fake) address of the shooter in the Trayvon Martin case (which was incredibly irresponsible of him), the hints of a lurking anti-semitism in some of his statements, plus his ludicrous dispute with Eastwood about the depiction of black soldiers in the latter’s WWII films (Lee’s claims was based on his own ignorance of the very real segregation between black and white soldiers at the time).
Concerning Kickstarter: Maybe Lee should do like Soderbergh, who has shown in the past that he is not afraid to take a risk and finance his own projects (if what I’m told is correct)?
PLUS never showing his real face, hiding behinds masks all the time…what’s the guy’s problem??).
He doesn’t want people to kill themselves when they realize how much uglier they are than him. There’d be mass suicides everyday if he never wore face paint or giant fedoras.
in addition to bitching about having never won an Oscar…for WHAT, you crazy lunatic??)
CHAPLIN, or my preferred Downey role, RESTORATION.
Look, the fact is these are all talented guys who we need as artists. Depp, Downey, and Lee. They all contribute to the enrichment of mankind through their work. I just don’t think anyone in Hollywood needs to be raiding people’s sad little pockets. We pay to see their work once it’s done if it looks like it’s worth it. That should be enough for them. Otherwise they can ask their rich friends for seed money.
I admit that was a bit of a diatribe, but that’s how conflicted I am with these people. If I wake up on the wrong side of the bed, I say: to hell with them. Other days? I remain thrilled by just being able to look forward to any spectacle out of Hollywood.
Depp, sure, he was a revelation in many ways in the 90s, and, yes, Downey was good in Chaplin, but that’s more than 20 years ago and now he makes a TON of money for being a smirky devil without the slightest shade of reflection. We don’t need him, he needs us. Or, rather, we need people like him to do something worthwhile (which is why I still have a semblance of respect for people like Soderbergh, Clooney and Pitt: they do big-budget movies in order to be able to realize passion projects and artier films on the side).
And please, Antoinette: Please tell me, how do Depp and Downey “enrich mankind”, as you so solemnly put it?? By making franchise trash over and over again? I think you mistook escapism or estrangement for enrichment…
If you don’t like the fact that big-name actors are using Kickstarter, don’t donate to their campaign. But don’t attack them for it. Do you attack Presidential candidates (most of whom are as well off as many film icons) because they fundraise rather than self-financing their own campaigns?
There’s nothing wrong with somebody like Spike Lee using Kickstarter rather than their own money to fund projects, for reasons that many have espoused. What is much closer to wrong is that “Grown Ups 2” was given $80 million (plus sponsorships) basically so Adam Sandler and his cronies could get paid to hang out together for a few months and call it a movie. “Fruitvale Station” could have been made nearly a HUNDRED TIMES with that money.
lets give some money to david lynch for another film
Nope. Sorry. I’m waiting to cash my pennies in when George Lucas starts a kickstarter.
Spike’s explanation:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/spike-lee-responds-to-crowdfunding-critics-im-not-bogarting-kickstarter/#comment-7107911
People forget one important thing about Spike. He’s a professor at NYU and he mentors and produces a lot of his student’s movies. They are learning writers, directors, actors, etc. Could it be that this project is one of his student’s projects that he’s backing?
What’s the link to his kickstarter?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spikelee/the-newest-hottest-spike-lee-joint
Thanks I donated the minimum. I’ve done this before for other creative projects, and encourage others to do the same.
If this comment was really written by Steven Soderbergh, why did he spell his own first name wrong?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spikelee/the-newest-hottest-spike-lee-joint/posts/552070
Well, Steven himself contributed to the rise of indie cinema more than anyone with the runaway success of Sex, Lies and Videotape (though, of course, people like Jarmusch, Lynch and Lee paved some of the way for him). I think his presentation of the dire state of American filmmaking during the 80s is pretty accurate, but I miss a more substantial assessment of why he bothers to take part in this particular project. For Soderbergh, apparently, the pivotal role of Lee to help create a more grassroots-based American film landscape back in the 80s is reason enough to go along with him, no matter the substance of the particular project at hand. I have huge respect for Soderbergh (and for Lee’s early films), but I don’t think he is making a convincing case for Kickstarter with this address.
Spike gives an explanation of why,
http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/spike-lee-responds-to-crowdfunding-critics-im-not-bogarting-kickstarter/#comment-7107911
I just read the synopsis of the movie, and THIS IS NOT a Spike lee written film. It seems more like one of his students may have written this and he’s backing the student.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spikelee/the-newest-hottest-spike-lee-joint
“Human beings who are addicted to blood. Funny, sexy, and bloody (and it’s not “Blacula”)…”
It’s a good thing he’s not writing more Scripts,
Because this text is Lame ass 😉
Not a word on the subject of Lee’s financial ability issue either …
Not a word on the subject of Lee’s financial ability issue either
Uh? Maybe because it’s a non-issue? God forbid the day someone like the great [insert name of millionaire and current cinephiles’ sacred cow] is unable to pitch a massive project because no studio would touch it, and he resorts to public fundraising. All these hypocrites would turn their fat asses around a do a complete 180.
It may be a non issue for us,
But it IS the issue that has risen .