3 ms·
Interesting that auteur theory is being applied to the morality of the production of film - usually it's just for artistic content. In much the same way that it
by tweetle_beetle 6y ago
Interesting that auteur theory is being applied to the morality of the production of film - usually it's just for artistic content. In much the same way that it's not fair(?) to attribute the artisitic merits of a finished film which is touched by hundreds of people to a single person, there must have been dozens of people directly enabling or contributing to Khrzhanovsky's abusive behaviour.
This is quite the list of participants of the film (from Wikipedia):
European Cinema Support Fund Eurimages; Arte France Cinema, Société Parisienne de Production; WDR/Arte, Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg, Mitteldeutsche Medienförderung, Essential Filmproduktion; Swedish Film Institute, Film I Väst, Plattform Production; Hubert Bals Fund, AG Interfilm B.V.
I wonder how a young inexperienced director was able to access such backing with apparently so little oversight.
- duxup 6y agoYeah all the interesting questions about what actually happened seem to be a mystery in this article.
- watwut 6y ago> I wonder how a young inexperienced director was able to access such backing with apparently so little oversight. He is 45 and this is not the first movie he made. Got some prizes for previously too. Why did you assumed he is young or inexperienced? Plus, the above mentioned institutions wont be on the set with you.
- tweetle_beetle 6y agoHe was 30 when the project started, just 7 years in from his directorial debut, with just 2 films to his name. As far as I know, it's very unusual to be raising large amounts of money and backing for a personal project under those circumstances. Yes his film "4" had some critical acclaim in a few second circuit indy festivals, but his family tree probably held a lot of sway too. (This is all pulled from Wikipedia, happy to be corrected)