The: Foolish HumanWhat skyclad devilry is this?

Indie film director Hal Heartley

I’m a huge fan of every single thing that filmmaker Hal Heartley has ever done. Today I decided that I wanted to try and buy some of his movies on DVD, or BlueRay. I started to look in all the usual places (Amazon, Deep Discount, and Heartley’s personal web site) and found that may of the films are out of print, which is very disappointing.

However, I also discovered a transcript of a speech that Heartley gave which I think is very interesting. Here is a clip from said speech.

The life of an independent filmmaker has something in common with that of an entrepreneur. These are people who have chosen not to, necessarily, have the security of a steady job, but whose work is to have ideas and try to get others as excited as they are about the possibility of these ideas. The entrepreneur might say: look, if we raise enough capital to buy these beautiful materials, we can build these houses with a nice view of the hills, sell them later on, and make some money for ourselves.

This is not unlike what a filmmaker sounds like when he or she says: if we raise capital to hire these beautiful actors and make this story about a boy, a girl, and their guns (or whatever) we might very well receive positive reviews and be accepted to film festivals, make our money back and maybe even a little more too. And, besides, we’ll be a little bit famous briefly.

The motivation is almost always this simple – to bring something into the world we want to exist.It might be, in our reckoning, Truth & Beauty (capitalized). Or maybe simply to make some money in a way that is more fun than working in a bank or being a construction worker.

I see now that I wanted to say I make movies for both of these reasons at different times. But, thinking about it while I prepared this speech for you, I understand this is not accurate. In fact, I am always operating in both these ways – trying to make something beautiful and true and make a living. I am not against money. But it is true: when push comes to shove and I have to choose, I tend to choose the insecurity of my independence over the security of money.

Often, one cannot have both – money and independence. Comfort, security, and cash is often purchased by giving up one’s independence. And by independence I do not mean a style of filmmaking or even a manner of doing business. Although it is that, a little. What I mean is an independent mind which refuses to give up the responsibility of reaching it’s own conclusions; independence as the acceptance of the responsibility to think for oneself.

After reading the speech I had several thoughts jump into my head. Here, in no particular order, are three of those thoughts.

1. Many people would argue that having money makes a person more independent, not less.

I’ve heard (I’m not sure if this is true mind you) that the last thing Bob Marley said to his son before he died was “Money can’t buy you life.” I’ve heard countless people say “Money can’t buy you happiness.”

One time I was at a bar talking about this very subject with a few people and the bartener chimed in saying, “I’ve been poor, and I’ve been not poor… Not poor is better.”

I personally see money as something that can be a lubricant to life. Money can’t make your life perfect, it can’t makey you happy all the time, and even though it can prolong life it can’t beat death. But it sure can make it easy to do things that you want to do… like traveling, or getting a dog, or issue of Sandman that will complete the run, etc. People don’t need such things, but such things sure do make life a bit more enjoyable.

But maybe I’m wrong about this. Maybe a person who just takes off with as little as possible is really enjoying life in ways that people who have money, and stuff, never will.

Thoughts?

2. This speech makes me think about art that is done for money as opposed to art which is done simply for the sake of creativity.

Can art which is made to make money be as “pure” as art which is just created because someone just needed to create it? Does money diminish art?

3. The speech made me think about the relationship between the 9-5ers and the 8-4am-ers…

Heartley’s films tend to attack the 9-5 lifestyle, and sing the praises of the bohemian (what I call the 8-4am) lifestyle.

Most of the great renaissance art was the direct result of partons like the the banking powerhouse known as the Medici family.

Is this biting the hand that feeds them?

Granted, I’ve heard many a 9-5er criticize the artists of the world as “slackers”, simply because they don’t conform to the consumerism that has become what passes for American “culture” now-a-days. Such people believe that artists oe them something, because they have money, and thus the ability to consume artwork as a commodity…. So maybe the artists do need to tell them expose them as the pompus asshats they are from time to time.

But ultimately don’t these two lifesytles exist in relation to one and other? Does one not give meaning to the existance of the other, simply by being the that which the other is not? (Does that even make sense?)