My theory is the following: all these lame, talentless types have constructed and bought into a metaphysical notion that "independent" somehow carries with it a certain ontological "authenticity": i.e. the aesthetic is inherently, organically, more valuable artistically because it is independent. Though, in reality, "independent" is more and more a euphimism for shitty. There is no reason why a big-budget aesthetic, even with a star cast, is any less valuable if it is a good film: simply watch, for example, "The Royal Tannenbaums." I'm proposing talentless hacks with no budget, no crew, and no vision call their "films" "self-produced," while we save the term "independent" for actual films made on a budget that aspire to something approaching critical and financial success, like "Boys Don't Cry," or even the most blatantly overrated film of the year "In the Bedroom" (which by the way, is just a fancy movie just a tad better than any movie on Lifetime TV after 8 PM. These kinds of movies made by actors pat themselves on the back for heaping the screen with ponderous, unwritten scenes where actors "display their craft." I can't think of anything I'd rather watch less. All the supposed "tension" and "emotional crisis" that was built up in the first hour and a half of that movie was immediately undermined by the "dramatic" ending: are we really to believe that the suffering father moved to tears by the treehouse suddenly decides to murder the murderer to save his faltering marriage? This is the type of "resolution" actors think is really profound, but anyone with half a brain thinks is really mindless and easy.)

Whew...now that I've gotten that out of the way: Halle Berry was abysmal. How could anyone put up with her crap? "Now that I've won this award for a film no one saw, let me vindicate models-turned-actresses everywhere and enter the Pantheon of all the Great black people, ever...such as Dr. Martin Luther King, and, er, Will Smith (the whitest black man at the Oscars)."
posted by rob at 2:33 PM [edit]