A Quote by Thom Powers

In an old model, the way a film would imprint itself on the public's consciousness is to get a theatrical run. But now there are more documentaries and more films in general being released than ever before. There are weeks when the New York Times is reviewing 15 films, so it's harder to leave an impression on the public. A lot of these films are seeing their financial future on digital platforms. Because viewers aren't hearing as much about films in theatrical release, I think the festival circuit is going to have increasing importance for the life of a film.
When I started in the late 1950s, every film I made - no matter how low the budget - got a theatrical release. Today, less that 20-percent of our films get a theatrical release.
Some critic complained about how many small films are released in New York... it annoyed me. Those small films that are lucky to get two weeks are often my favorite films of the year.
But I think the thing I'm proud of about the film is that there aren't many films - either independent films or mainstream Hollywood films - that are like this; it's of its own times, and it's the film Mike Nichols wanted to make.
I think distribution has become a lot harder. With the whole explosion of digital video, there's just a lot more people making films. Distributors have a lot more choice. I do think there's an audience out there for small films. It's obvious to me what the studios do: they've co-opted independent film. They all have their independent arm. They can afford to crush the competition.
It always surprises me when I see the director's versions of films released separately, long after the film's theatrical run.
L.A. films are hard to define compared to New York films because New York films are their own subgenre, in a way. L.A. is more transparent.
I don't think all films should necessarily look like they do on digital video. I think it cheats the audience, at some point. If you try to make an epic and you shoot it digitally, that doesn't make much sense. I think there's a certain kind of film that could be a "digital film." But it shouldn't be interchangeable with other films. It should be something more than just a capture medium. It should be a different form altogether, something new.
I think sometimes there are films where I understand what they are about, but there are also some mysterious areas in the film where I haven't got the whole image and I haven't got everything. And then it stays much longer with me, because I have to somehow put myself much more into the film to get it. And so this is what I'm trying to do with my films.
It's easy to get a theatrical release that shows in one theater for a week. But there's no advertising, and no one sees the movie. It's hard to get a real theatrical release. The distribution of independent films is, to me, extraordinarily frustrating.
When I started, every film got a full theatrical distribution. Today, almost no low budget films, maybe two or three a year, will get a full theatrical distribution. We've been frozen out of that, which means they must be aware that for a full theatrical distribution it either has to be something like Saw or some exploitation film of today or an extremely well made personal film.
If you get to bring a little movie on the festival circuit, it's a nice experience because you get to see it with an audience. People who go to festivals to watch films are usually a little more eager to enjoy them. It's exciting because it's like you're going to the film's opening night at every festival.
I intend more of a kinship with silent films than more modern film. I like the old cinema. My films are more of a hybrid - a different style of filmmaking to what I call talking head movies. Some people don't get it. Especially the more academic types.
The Cannes film festival is about big-budget films but also remarkable films made in different political regimes by film-makers with little resources.
I auditioned for quite a lot of films. I do not wish to name the films I auditioned for. There were times when I knew I would not be fit for this film, or I would not get this film. Still, I used to audition for it just to get experience... to practice.
Various studios are still shooting on film with digital grain and the DI negatives, it's not ideal. We should really be all film or all digital. But that being said, the old way of graining in the camera, now you can make changes like a painter. It's dangerous because you can ruin the film, you can over-fiddle. We've all seen films and gone 'what the hell is that?'
I think of horror films as art, as films of confrontation. Films that make you confront aspects of your own life that are difficult to face. Just because you're making a horror film doesn't mean you can't make an artful film.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!