The Value of Low-Budget Movies

John Steven Soet’s Dec. 14 Counterpunch (“All Low-Budget Movies Are Not Created Equal or Equally Creative”) is narrow-minded and uninformed.

Essentially, Soet’s argument is that all the rank “amateur” independent filmmakers should step aside so as not to dilute the efforts of “legitimate” filmmakers like himself. In support of his argument, he specifically cites the necessity of vindictive, artistically frustrated story analysts to sift through the glut of unqualified scripts from the likes of “short-order cooks” and “pot scrubbers” and the proliferation of bad films financed by “dumb money” from “unsophisticated investors.”

There are several problems with this line of thinking. First, Soet neglects to recognize that every budding screenwriter is forced to support himself by any means possible until his first script is sold; unlike other creative disciplines, there are no entry-level positions for screenwriters. Thus, today’s pot scrubber could be tomorrow’s Quentin Tarantino.

Second, in regard to his comments about “dumb money” and “unsophisticated investors,” let the market decide. If the product is bad, it probably won’t sell, and those individuals responsible, both creatively and financially, will eventually be forced out of the business.

Finally, there are his comments on story analysts, whom he considers to be the “greatest nemesis to creativity in the history of film.” I think most people would concede that there are certain “necessary evil” aspects to the readers’ inclusion in the creative hierarchy. However, it is blatant slander to say that, “out of jealousy or anger,” readers “can make a practice of trashing good scripts.”

In actuality, most readers love finding a good script and champion those scripts to their superiors. To do otherwise would be counterproductive and would soon lead to unemployment; from top to bottom, this business is too competitive to support such frivolity.

DAVID REED PRYBIL

Prelude Pictures, Los Angeles