Film making is the play on opposites. And I find it hilarious.
It takes a million dollars to make a film about poverty. When I was taking "Woman's Prison" to different producers, they all mentioned that the film would cost at least one million dollars. I mentioned that I did not want established stars to be in the film, I wanted all unknowns. Still, they insisted. This million dollar price tag on a story about poverty seemed ridiculous, especially since my goal was to make a completely honest film about the subject matter. And I did.
Drive and passion carried "Woman's Prison" to completion not a million dollar budget.
A studio may make a film about being poor white trash, but you can bet that almost everyone on the set has little or no experience living as such. Most of the film business is saturated in wealth, ran by people from comfortable means not impoverished backgrounds. Which is reasonable when one must face the demands socially and emotionally of the "business." However, this gap leads to the misrepresentation of poverty and how it translates emotionally and intellectually to people. Absolute poverty is not just something that exists in Africa and South America. Absolute poverty exists in South Bend, Indiana, Detroit, Michigan and in East St. Louis, and its not only black people, yet white people as well. These are American third world nations.
Growing up around such lives motivated my decision to make "Woman's Prison" under the circumstances that I did. It was important to not tack on a comfortable ending to this story just because most would not "believe" that Julie Ann's circumstances were possible. The truth is "Woman's Prison" does not even touch the iceberg of these invisible lives. The media's inability to allow these women to been seen or heard humanely only adds injury to the situation.
Film is a chance to correct dangerous misconceptions about poverty and the choices it presents. It is humanity's chance to share honest emotion and be introduced to new perspectives collectively. It allows dialogue to happen and puts audiences in other people's shoes. Which is why every filmmaker has a responsibility to create work that is honest. Shock is over. Honest and sincerity are the new trend.
When Indie films were a blossoming art form in the early 90's, they were made for almost nothing, by unknowns, with unknowns and were greeted with great admiration. However, now an "Indie" film is considered made for 5 million dollars and casted with a star who has taken a "pay cut." And what was once considered "indie", controlling content, making a film with passion, is now considered "amateur." Yet, this is such of the opposite of what "Indie" should mean. Indie should not only be about famous people making their own films. "Indie" should be about the story and passion attached not the Hollywood name attached. "Indie" should be independent of status quo and formula.
Most people would have walked away and settled on being a gaffer or an assistant to producer rather then do what I do. If you settle into that position you luckily avoid humiliation of the Indie process. You are treated with basic respect from your fellow peers and receive instant admiration from the public who may ask what you do for a living. There is not such public admiration coming at you when you have given up your phone service to pay for kraft services or are vomiting on set from stress.
However, then you have to live with your artistic conscience knowing it missed out. I have to know what it feels like to have the film come through me. And while the process is an uncomfortable one and forces one to be instantly 50, I will say that if you have it pestering inside, the only freedom you will ever have is in making the film. There's no easy way out.
So practice film yoga. Learn to breath while holding an uncomfortable position for a long time. When you are finished, you may be sore but its only because you just moved a mountain.