Thank you for your impassioned discourse on the concept of 'Communist Filmmaking.' Your perspective on cinema's potential for communication and your critique of the capitalist structures surrounding it is thought-provoking. However, I believe some points require further critical examination and refinement.
Your assessment of the history of cinema seems to suggest that from its inception, it has been solely a capitalist enterprise. This is a simplification that doesn't adequately capture the rich and varied history of filmmaking. Cinema has been used as a tool by a wide range of social and political ideologies, from capitalist to socialist, each contributing to its development. Soviet filmmakers like Eisenstein and Vertov, for instance, used cinema as a means to propagate socialist ideology, while Hollywood built its empire on capitalism. To define film as inherently capitalist dismisses a wealth of global cinematic history that doesn't neatly fit into such a narrative.
While you’re right that is has been explicitly tied to capital itself, art and commerce have been intertwined for centuries. From the patronage system of the Renaissance, where wealthy nobles and religious institutions financed artists, to today's film industry, where films are often financed by production companies hoping for a return on investment, there's always been a transactional aspect to art. On the other hand, some would argue that the tension between art and commerce can actually be beneficial, driving innovation and ensuring that art is accessible and engaging to a wide audience. This is a complex and ongoing debate in the world of art and cinema.
Moreover, your assumptions about human nature come across as somewhat idealistic. While we can certainly strive for a world where everyone is driven by the 'inherent value in human creation' rather than profit-making, we must also recognize that humans have a variety of motivations. Some are driven by the need for personal recognition, others by the desire for financial security, and still others by the simple love of the craft. These motivations are not inherently wrong or right, and they all can and have contributed to the creation of meaningful and impactful cinema.
Your assertion that filmmaking can be democratized to produce truly proletarian films raises an important question about the nature of art. Art, in many respects, is a personal vision translated into a tangible form. While it is certainly possible for a collective to create a piece of art, such an approach may risk diluting the original, personal vision that often gives a piece of art its power and resonance. Filmmaking, in particular, often requires a singular vision to guide it - the vision of the director. While collaborative efforts are necessary in filmmaking, how can this collaboration occur without descending into a directionless consensus that dilutes the original vision?
It's also important to consider how you propose to fund these communal films. While your endeavor is admirable and financial support is requested, without a feasible and sustainable model for financing, 'Communist Filmmaking' could fall into the same pitfalls of many well-intentioned but economically unviable ventures. It's one thing to critique capitalism's effect on film, but providing a realistic alternative funding model is a more difficult and crucial task.
Finally, you touch upon important topics such as labor, disability, and racial issues in filmmaking. It would be beneficial to discuss how your model of Communist Filmmaking would directly address these issues in a practical and effective manner. In the end, intellectualizing and analyzing the “why” of society having preconceived beliefs about certain groups of people does not get us closer to really understanding the true reality behind it. Today’s society often blames the individual or “cancels” them for perceived sins against the seemingly unquestionable truths of critical theory, rather than looking at critical theory as a way of suggesting that society’s preconceived notions are also a problem in itself.
While your commitment to exploring an alternative model of filmmaking is commendable, the practicality, feasibility, and implications of such a model require more critical examination. An informed critique of the existing system, coupled with a realistic and viable alternative, could lead to a more constructive discourse and potentially pave the way for impactful change. Both notions of hierarchy and especially equality are intangible, abstract concepts, that do not exist in nature.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! You're correct in seeing my generalization in this introduction post about the capitalist nature of filmmaking. Intentionally, but perhaps not the best decision, I left out acknowledgements of non-capitalist filmmaking in the intro post to save for later posts. Eisenstein and Vertov's films are beautiful examples of socialist films. The Soviet Union produced many of my favorite films. It is not my intention to not talk about these films and others in global cinema and Third cinema of Solana and Getino, but simply to do it at a later date since this project spans so much film history.
Per your comment on the collective, collaborative process of making films--I already believe films are made in such a way. As an industrial art, filmmaking has a division of labor in order to efficiently produce a film. By no means does my theory take away from personal distinct vision of a film i.e. the job of the director. I agree with you that film require a distinct vision and that any theory of communist filmmaking celebrates this. My working assumption of this theory is that decommodifying cinema (and other arts) would produce more distinct visions from a larger demographic of people since their aims do not have to be for "the market" rather for an "audience."
I have a lot to say on Tarkovsky specifically in this regard and how limited he often felt by the committee in charge of filmmaking. His projects were always misunderstood by them, and he knew they wouldn't be profitable in the time, yet his art is some of the greatest film has seen. My working theory of communist filmmaking is that filmmakers (using this term to span all working artists in the industry) should be the ones in control of their art, labor, and how a film is distributed. I think it's a false assumption that because something is socialist or communist cannot have a leader or a vision, on the contrary, I believe.
I don't believe that I have an ideal notion of hierarchy. Collective production does not mean that everyone on a film is a director, there is just the director(s). My point of collective production is economic in the Marxist sense. That the product is owned by the workers (filmmakers) not by a studio, or individual capitalist etc. I also don't believe that I am saying anything that goes against human nature--films are already collectively produced, but grips and gaffers must scrap by while billionaire bosses reap all of the financial rewards from a film. On a smaller scale this happens with independent filmmakers. Directors and producer put in thousands of hours only for a distributor to take all of their profits leaving none for those who did the work. The problem is not in the hierarchy of a film or human nature, the problem is exploitation, and I don't think this intangible or abstract, rather just needs thought, time and research.
Per your last paragraph: you hit the nail on the head. Is it even of this practical? How do we finance films in such a manner while living under capitalism? You pose all of the questions I have constantly running in my head. As stated in the beginning: this is a brief introduction post to the work I am doing here, much of which will be an informed critique of the existing system. I'm not saying I have the perfect answers or perfect theories or all of the knowledge, however, I do believe I am asking the right questions.
Thank you for engaging with the post. Please subscribe to the Substack so that we can continue our discussion and equally deepen our understanding of what any of this means. This is a project that will require years of knowledge production. Everything requires further critical examination!
Hello Parker,
Thank you for your impassioned discourse on the concept of 'Communist Filmmaking.' Your perspective on cinema's potential for communication and your critique of the capitalist structures surrounding it is thought-provoking. However, I believe some points require further critical examination and refinement.
Your assessment of the history of cinema seems to suggest that from its inception, it has been solely a capitalist enterprise. This is a simplification that doesn't adequately capture the rich and varied history of filmmaking. Cinema has been used as a tool by a wide range of social and political ideologies, from capitalist to socialist, each contributing to its development. Soviet filmmakers like Eisenstein and Vertov, for instance, used cinema as a means to propagate socialist ideology, while Hollywood built its empire on capitalism. To define film as inherently capitalist dismisses a wealth of global cinematic history that doesn't neatly fit into such a narrative.
While you’re right that is has been explicitly tied to capital itself, art and commerce have been intertwined for centuries. From the patronage system of the Renaissance, where wealthy nobles and religious institutions financed artists, to today's film industry, where films are often financed by production companies hoping for a return on investment, there's always been a transactional aspect to art. On the other hand, some would argue that the tension between art and commerce can actually be beneficial, driving innovation and ensuring that art is accessible and engaging to a wide audience. This is a complex and ongoing debate in the world of art and cinema.
Moreover, your assumptions about human nature come across as somewhat idealistic. While we can certainly strive for a world where everyone is driven by the 'inherent value in human creation' rather than profit-making, we must also recognize that humans have a variety of motivations. Some are driven by the need for personal recognition, others by the desire for financial security, and still others by the simple love of the craft. These motivations are not inherently wrong or right, and they all can and have contributed to the creation of meaningful and impactful cinema.
Your assertion that filmmaking can be democratized to produce truly proletarian films raises an important question about the nature of art. Art, in many respects, is a personal vision translated into a tangible form. While it is certainly possible for a collective to create a piece of art, such an approach may risk diluting the original, personal vision that often gives a piece of art its power and resonance. Filmmaking, in particular, often requires a singular vision to guide it - the vision of the director. While collaborative efforts are necessary in filmmaking, how can this collaboration occur without descending into a directionless consensus that dilutes the original vision?
It's also important to consider how you propose to fund these communal films. While your endeavor is admirable and financial support is requested, without a feasible and sustainable model for financing, 'Communist Filmmaking' could fall into the same pitfalls of many well-intentioned but economically unviable ventures. It's one thing to critique capitalism's effect on film, but providing a realistic alternative funding model is a more difficult and crucial task.
Finally, you touch upon important topics such as labor, disability, and racial issues in filmmaking. It would be beneficial to discuss how your model of Communist Filmmaking would directly address these issues in a practical and effective manner. In the end, intellectualizing and analyzing the “why” of society having preconceived beliefs about certain groups of people does not get us closer to really understanding the true reality behind it. Today’s society often blames the individual or “cancels” them for perceived sins against the seemingly unquestionable truths of critical theory, rather than looking at critical theory as a way of suggesting that society’s preconceived notions are also a problem in itself.
While your commitment to exploring an alternative model of filmmaking is commendable, the practicality, feasibility, and implications of such a model require more critical examination. An informed critique of the existing system, coupled with a realistic and viable alternative, could lead to a more constructive discourse and potentially pave the way for impactful change. Both notions of hierarchy and especially equality are intangible, abstract concepts, that do not exist in nature.
Yours sincerely,
An interested stranger
Hi Johnny,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! You're correct in seeing my generalization in this introduction post about the capitalist nature of filmmaking. Intentionally, but perhaps not the best decision, I left out acknowledgements of non-capitalist filmmaking in the intro post to save for later posts. Eisenstein and Vertov's films are beautiful examples of socialist films. The Soviet Union produced many of my favorite films. It is not my intention to not talk about these films and others in global cinema and Third cinema of Solana and Getino, but simply to do it at a later date since this project spans so much film history.
Per your comment on the collective, collaborative process of making films--I already believe films are made in such a way. As an industrial art, filmmaking has a division of labor in order to efficiently produce a film. By no means does my theory take away from personal distinct vision of a film i.e. the job of the director. I agree with you that film require a distinct vision and that any theory of communist filmmaking celebrates this. My working assumption of this theory is that decommodifying cinema (and other arts) would produce more distinct visions from a larger demographic of people since their aims do not have to be for "the market" rather for an "audience."
I have a lot to say on Tarkovsky specifically in this regard and how limited he often felt by the committee in charge of filmmaking. His projects were always misunderstood by them, and he knew they wouldn't be profitable in the time, yet his art is some of the greatest film has seen. My working theory of communist filmmaking is that filmmakers (using this term to span all working artists in the industry) should be the ones in control of their art, labor, and how a film is distributed. I think it's a false assumption that because something is socialist or communist cannot have a leader or a vision, on the contrary, I believe.
I don't believe that I have an ideal notion of hierarchy. Collective production does not mean that everyone on a film is a director, there is just the director(s). My point of collective production is economic in the Marxist sense. That the product is owned by the workers (filmmakers) not by a studio, or individual capitalist etc. I also don't believe that I am saying anything that goes against human nature--films are already collectively produced, but grips and gaffers must scrap by while billionaire bosses reap all of the financial rewards from a film. On a smaller scale this happens with independent filmmakers. Directors and producer put in thousands of hours only for a distributor to take all of their profits leaving none for those who did the work. The problem is not in the hierarchy of a film or human nature, the problem is exploitation, and I don't think this intangible or abstract, rather just needs thought, time and research.
Per your last paragraph: you hit the nail on the head. Is it even of this practical? How do we finance films in such a manner while living under capitalism? You pose all of the questions I have constantly running in my head. As stated in the beginning: this is a brief introduction post to the work I am doing here, much of which will be an informed critique of the existing system. I'm not saying I have the perfect answers or perfect theories or all of the knowledge, however, I do believe I am asking the right questions.
Thank you for engaging with the post. Please subscribe to the Substack so that we can continue our discussion and equally deepen our understanding of what any of this means. This is a project that will require years of knowledge production. Everything requires further critical examination!
Parker