I always wondered why the State finances films and not tecnocumbia. It is easier and cheaper to make, more fun and gets a lot more people than one of those rare movies misunderstood.
audiovisual
I am, I love movies and would like someday to do great films that win awards like the strange and eccentric vanguard. But the fact that I like something, does not mean that support will be spent state resources to encourage him.
is true, I accept, I participated in the call for competitive grants CNCINE hoping to fund short that I have at the tip of the tongue for almost two years. An average situation is confusing, but in my defense I say that the fact that wander the streets and enjoy state parks, not to say that it is statist. My insurance is state owned, and still defend the monopolization of health.
important thing here is that I do not defend the law of cinema. I write this because I read a call where you call everyone "who does or dream of making movies" to defend the law. And it is not. If the law exists, try to take advantage of it, but there is that grief, and if removed all the better for everyone.
I do not agree with the state fund with the money of all, certain few activities. Much less see the sense in which discriminate against some film financing. It may well be the pole dance or ice skating, or graffiti, or puppet shows. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a movie filmed three cats per year. Film which, moreover, the vast majority of taxpayers do not even see, because not interested in a hell.
My logic is: if the vast majority of people will like, interested, or at least the filmmakers would like to support Ecuador, then it would be financed through taxes. Unfortunately not, and as I always say: if something can not afford it alone is because nobody cares and has no reason to be more than one's own ego and satisfaction of the user. For something we're artists. Only we must understand that if nobody pays to see our "work", then we are doomed or stop it or find our own ways of doing it, but we have no right to plunder the pockets of others to fund it.
is a hard road, indeed. Similar to a musician, teatrero, wizard or painter who wants to dedicate his life to express themselves through their art. Maybe a little more difficult due to the very high cost difference between a record and film a feature film, but it is what choose. It is assumed that is what we like.
My lifelong dream is to find a rich old woman, with silver, which you love oral sex and is willing to be my patron. Until that happens, I guess I will break my back to save something, and seek and seek financial support for companies, foundations, friends, family, etc. but I will not stand by for lack of funds. Much less will be unveiled to whine to afford what the bureaucrats decide what is maybe one of the biggest fads of my life making films.
audiovisual
I am, I love movies and would like someday to do great films that win awards like the strange and eccentric vanguard. But the fact that I like something, does not mean that support will be spent state resources to encourage him.
is true, I accept, I participated in the call for competitive grants CNCINE hoping to fund short that I have at the tip of the tongue for almost two years. An average situation is confusing, but in my defense I say that the fact that wander the streets and enjoy state parks, not to say that it is statist. My insurance is state owned, and still defend the monopolization of health.
important thing here is that I do not defend the law of cinema. I write this because I read a call where you call everyone "who does or dream of making movies" to defend the law. And it is not. If the law exists, try to take advantage of it, but there is that grief, and if removed all the better for everyone.
I do not agree with the state fund with the money of all, certain few activities. Much less see the sense in which discriminate against some film financing. It may well be the pole dance or ice skating, or graffiti, or puppet shows. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a movie filmed three cats per year. Film which, moreover, the vast majority of taxpayers do not even see, because not interested in a hell.
My logic is: if the vast majority of people will like, interested, or at least the filmmakers would like to support Ecuador, then it would be financed through taxes. Unfortunately not, and as I always say: if something can not afford it alone is because nobody cares and has no reason to be more than one's own ego and satisfaction of the user. For something we're artists. Only we must understand that if nobody pays to see our "work", then we are doomed or stop it or find our own ways of doing it, but we have no right to plunder the pockets of others to fund it.
is a hard road, indeed. Similar to a musician, teatrero, wizard or painter who wants to dedicate his life to express themselves through their art. Maybe a little more difficult due to the very high cost difference between a record and film a feature film, but it is what choose. It is assumed that is what we like.
My lifelong dream is to find a rich old woman, with silver, which you love oral sex and is willing to be my patron. Until that happens, I guess I will break my back to save something, and seek and seek financial support for companies, foundations, friends, family, etc. but I will not stand by for lack of funds. Much less will be unveiled to whine to afford what the bureaucrats decide what is maybe one of the biggest fads of my life making films.
0 comments:
Post a Comment