Mainstreamology (Or: Why I'm Committed to Being an Indy Filmmaker As Opposed to Hollywood)

The idea of being mainstream has a different conceptual geometry than independent. Consequently, I don't believe that independent people will ever become mainstream, nor will mainstream people become independent, at least not without giving up their former status as independent or mainstream respectively. The two are mostly mutually exclusive. Here's why.

When you make a choice to become mainstream or independent, you choose to adopt something and discard something. Choosing to become mainstream means you adopt quantity of audience and discard unity within the individual. Choosing to become independent means you adopt unity within the individual and discard either money or the thing which brings it—quantity of audience.

Unity within the individual can be seen as vertical. Quantity of audience, of course, is horizontal. Thus we have independent movies, for instance, which are very deep. The word "deep" is not a misnomer: they're deep because each idea expressed in them was very personal to the artist, and thus touches the artist very deeply. Unfortunately, what this means is that the artist cannot and will not be accessible right away to anyone who does not already think like the artist. That is why quantity of audience is sacrificed. It isn't because the artist is unwilling to make money, it's because the artist's commitment to him- or herself as an artist is greater than his or her commitment to money.

Hollywood movies, on the other hand, are made for the purpose of garnering a large quantity of audience, and also money. What this means, of course, is that the movie must resonate on some level with a large number of people, many of whom think very differently about just about everything. This is why Hollywood movies are so very collaborative. Hollywood is a business. People are measured by the amount they cause something to sell. And causing something to sell is determined not by how much you listen to your soul, but by how much you listen to other people. This is why Hollywood likes the apprentice system—climbing the Hollywood corporate ladder starting as a prop boy means you listened very carefully to a large number of salaried employees for decades, and now you know how to make money.

This is where it gets interesting. Observe: listening to your soul and listening to others are both virtuous. But they're different and complementary kinds of virtues. This means that it's possible and even desirable for two people to be in the same room, one of whom is very adept at listening to his own soul and the other very adept at listening to others, and for both of these people to be very virtuous, not lacking a whit in virtue. Obviously, if they both were film directors, the former would probably be an independent film director, and the latter a Hollywood director. The former would also probably sustain himself on a second source of income, while the latter may bring in millions of dollars. This is the natural way of things.

It is possible, though very rare, for an independent movie to make it big. But this will only happen one of two ways. Either 1) some big name with a lot of influence is somehow touched by the film because it speaks personally to her, and she uses her influence to manufacture an audience for it, or 2) it just so happens serendipitously and inexplicably to strike a nerve with a large number of people, probably in a way that the director and others making it could never have foreseen.

This creates a difficulty for directors in both camps (independent and Hollywood). Hollywood directors sometimes decide they want to be more independent, and independent directors very often want to be mainstream. But I wouldn't recommend expending too much energy in either respective direction. Hollywood directors should stick to Hollywood, and independent directors should stick to independence. Hollywood directors who try to be independent don't often succeed. Though there's no harm in making a foray into independent production, there's also no harm in sticking to Hollywood. I'm not saying that introspection as a spiritual quality is bad for Hollywood directors, but rather that introspection will probably just make you a better Hollywood director rather than a truly independent voice. Likewise, a foray into Hollywood may be great for an established independent director. But the "boulevard of broken dreams" is filled with people who unwisely tried to take on Hollywood while remaining true to their idiosyncratic independent commitments. And the idiosyncratic directors who make it big in Hollywood are never truly accepted as independent voices by the people whose opinions in this regard really matter.

Note that these ideas, I think, can be extended to every area where the independent vs. mainstream dichotomy applies, which is pretty much everywhere. Thus, in politics, we have people like Senator Bernie Sanders and former Senator Hillary Clinton. The Clintons are very mainstream, while Sanders is very independent. They're both good at what they do. But I don't think either of them could or would want to switch places. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be mainstream, you're going to have to cater to mainstream opinions as much as possible. And if you want to be independent, you're probably better off in the House of Representatives. Obama may be an "independent," but he got lucky. (This is, of course, my perspective as a lifelong independent-minded Democrat who voted twice for Obama.) (It's important to note, also, the reason why this political perspective is important. People often get the mistaken idea that being an independent voice is ipso facto better than being mainstream, most vehemently, I think, in the realm of politics. But this is not true, and nobody I've talked to seems to have the slightest hint as to why it isn't true. It's not true not because compromise is good, or because sincerity comes from introspection or long-held ideals. It's not true because either you're good at being mainstream, or you're good at being independent, or you're mediocre at both. There's really no middle ground here.)

Being independent requires a specific type of mind, as does being mainstream. Neither should switch spots too often. As far as filmmaking goes, the independents have a long history of very intriguing and high-quality art films which people should try to watch. Independents should, and probably do, study these. Hollywood directors, on the other hand, have a long history of films of equal but different quality. Hollywood was conceived as epic ("Birth of a Nation") and because of the Depression, they took on the role of national cultural therapists. I love independent art films, but they don't make me cry. Hollywood almost always does—even the low-quality low-art films. The problem is, I don't always want to cry about the state of our country. Sometimes, I need fulfillment in other areas. I'm sure that many other people feel the same, and this is why we need both the independents and the Hollywood folks.

Bottom line: stick to what you're good at. Hollywood directors: it's better to make people cry with low-art movies than go broke making independent films. Independents: it's better to blow people's minds with simple, low-budget, high-art films than go broke trying to make an action flick which you intend to sell to an uninterested Hollywood exec. An "independent" Hollywood film will leave the true art critics gasping for air (in a bad way). A "Hollywood" independent flick will run you out of business (and leave the true art critics gasping for air, in a bad way). Don't do it; stick to what you're good at. It's better that way.

Tanha and Economics

"Tanha" is a Buddhist term, meaning "thirst" — thirst for existence and becoming, or thirst for self-annihilation. The Buddha said that "nirvana," or the ultimate end of all suffering, is reached essentially when one fully discards this thirst. However, this does not mean that Buddhas cannot reincarnate, or that the thirst has been completely destroyed for all time, never to arise again. Countless living beings have experienced this tanha since the enlightenment of the Buddha, so it is not the case that the Buddha completely destroyed tanha. Nor is it the case that tanha is ultimately bad, or that it cannot be an element of enlightenment.

I believe that tanha should be discarded by everyone. Selfish hoarding of material things is not conducive to happiness in the slightest. However, once one has discarded this tanha, given it up, renounced it, one can then develop a thirst which is very similar — the thirst to help all sentient beings. One can develop a thirst for generating new dharma (enlightened teachings) and a thirst to cultivate the requirements for a free life, which is a prerequisite to putting dharma into practice.

Thus I believe that this thirst, when properly harnessed, expresses itself as democratic economic growth. People who have generated an altruistic wish to help society, a type of thirst, naturally examine people and their needs, then bring into being a commodity or service to fulfill these needs. This is capital gain. Then, through a process of implicit or explicit (in America, implicit) bargaining, these people acquire the means to secure the continuing production of the commodity or service while bringing the commodity or service to the public. This is how it works in a good, capitalist society.

In a communist society, the idea is that people work only for the good of others. Any capital gain is shared among everyone, and only for the purpose of living a utilitarian life devoid of things that do not provide utilitarian value. I believe staunchly individualist capitalists have two things to learn from communism: the altruistic desire to help one's comrades, and the renunciation of luxury. (Indeed, the Buddha gave a moral imperative for employers to share "unusual delicacies" with their employees. Thus Buddhism admonishes employers to renounce their luxuries, if not entirely, at least to the point of being willing to share them with the public. Note: Buddha lived in a capitalist society.) But in a very important sense, communism and democratic capitalism are the same: they both produce commodities and services for the good of all.

In any society, in order to be of any substantial benefit to anyone, one must have two things: material welfare, and an altruistic wish to benefit others. The latter, although ultimately the responsibility of the individual, can be cultured by social interactions — by good people creating a good society which adequately ensures peoples' welfare. The former must be created socially. Material welfare consists of seven things: a) food and water, b) shelter, c) sanitation, d) healthcare, e) inspiration to work for others' welfare, f) capital or means to work for others' welfare, and f) leisure time. (I believe in the Buddhist canon there are many different breakdowns for what beings need to be of benefit to others, mostly including things such as food and water, and not inspiration or dharma — dharma or inspiration is usually something people participate in after their material requirements have been met. The reason why I include these as material requirements is because in America, music, films, books, etc. all can provide inspiration, but are considered a "commodity" or material thing, not something one actively participates in per se. Also, they usually cost money. It is because of this materialist approach that I include these things as material "requirements" for a good life.)

Now I believe the details of the institutions which provide these seven things are unimportant. Thus, communist state institutions, private institutions, charity institutions, church institutions, democratic state institutions, or any other kind of institution can adequately provide these seven things. In America, it is understood that private social clubs and churches and various networks of friends, or private companies (eg. "the media") or nonprofit organizations, are to provide inspiration to work for others' benefit — sometimes for a price, sometimes for free. (Here, again, I'm referring to material goods, like books, or internet access, which provide inspiration to help others, in addition to exhortations from friends or one's pastor etc.) Water and sanitation are provided by publicly funded and state regulated private or public companies. (Water can also arise as a product of the environment in which private citizens live, such as a well or spring.) Leisure time is provided by the employer. The employer usually provides the means for acquiring shelter, food, healthcare, and capital or means for everything else (including capital or means to work for others' welfare) and private companies provide the actual food, shelter, and healthcare for a price, with the understanding that most people have the means to fulfill this price.

Can these things be provided more efficiently through other institutions? It's hard to say. I believe a very strong case, based on empirical evidence, can be made that democratic state institutions are better at providing healthcare for more people than private companies. However it really doesn't matter, because the following principle operates in every society (but especially in a democracy or communist society): everybody is responsible for everybody's material welfare. This means (now pay attention WalMart!) that if you are an employer in America, YOU are responsible to make sure the money you provide employees is enough to secure food, shelter, and health care.

It is my opinion that to adequately work for other people's welfare, one must work AT MOST 2050-2070 hours a year, and make AT LEAST enough to pay for auto insurance, housing (even if it is just a manufactured or trailer home), food, health care, plus something like 10-25% more. It is my opinion that the upward trend in the federal minimum wage is not enough to counteract inflation, and in some large cities, you simply cannot make it work. For example, I've seen evidence that the cost of living in New York City is about $50,000-70,000/year, and New York State minimum wage at 2070 hours/year gives you less than $15,000/year, before taxes! Of course, in New York City, even unskilled labor will pay more than minimum wage, perhaps more than twice as much. But $30,000/year in NYC still doesn't cut it. At least, this amount doesn't meet my requirements.

Thus those who wish to live in the city and are unskilled and have not completed college need to realize that they simply cannot make it work. I feel deeply sorry for those born in New York who's parents can't afford to send them to college — they have no recourse at all, whether or not they possess natural talents or inclinations towards greatness. In theory, welfare should provide for them. But in 1993, as Theresa Funiciello reports in her book Tyrrany of Kindness, the average welfare grant for a three-person family was about $441/month. Again, this simply cannot cut it. The only hope for the inner city poor and uneducated to become upwardly mobile is if the government raises the dollar amount of welfare checks, or if some program were created to at the very least move these people to less expensive areas to live. I think it would be good for everybody if these people were given the option of upward mobility, or at least some sort of fulfillment. Of course, this is a very complicated issue with no easy answers. One thing I would suggest is for dharma people to participate in the marketplace as employers, and give dharma to their employees. In that way, the poor can work full time and still at least have spiritual fulfillment.

In any case, America is a land full of tanha, with an economy that the word "thriving" seems to fall short of describing. Everyone seems so ambitious — everyone works quite hard. I believe that each individual's tanha, once discarded, purified, then harnessed, can manifest itself as democratic economic and spiritual growth for the good of everyone.