Ah - another love song for the true hero of American indie film, the driven, self-sacrificing producer.

Does no one find it telling that, in the U.S., producers are far better known than filmmakers? And how account for the fact that an esteemed producer like Ted Hope has failed, for close to 20 years, to identify and promote a single world-class American filmmaker?

you have got to be kidding me. i think those are among the most absurd, not to mention inaccurate, comments i have ever seen in print.

to say that producers are better known than filmmakers -- FAR better known -- is untrue to the point of being ridiculous. first, producers ARE filmmakers -- so i have to assume the writer means to compare producers and directors. it is arguable that certain actors are better known than some directors, but ask anyone -- from the lay person who rents the occasional dvd to professionals in the business -- and i guarantee you that he or she will know more directors than producers, and be far readier and quicker to correlate films with directors and actors than with producers. it's still a rarefied place (e.g., film festivals) where producers are known at all. in the real world, it's not even close. that's a mindless assertion.

but, yes, Ted Hope is well known in this business -- and deserves to be. surely this is not in question. his resume speaks for itself. he is arguably the most accomplished and influential producer of independent film in the past 20 years. is there some value in obscurity? with a very small handful of others, Ted Hope virtually invented the template for the successful serious indie project -- sometimes low in resources, but, far more often than not, high in originality and artistry. as much as anyone, and more than most, he has set the tone and paved the way for other producers, directors, writers, actors, and craftsmen (and women), in terms of what true indie film can be at its best.

finally, i suppose it is to some extent a matter of taste, and of how one chooses to define "world-class," but it cannot reasonably be called "failure," by any standard, to have nurtured the careers, and guided the best work, of such filmmakers as Hal Hartley, Todd Haynes, Todd Solondz, and Ang Lee, to name just a few.

i don't know what this guy is talking about, and it's hard to imagine where these remarks are coming from, or why. i can only guess that there's some profound bitterness at work here, pointlessly directed at this business in general, and at producers in particular.

When an ordinary reader (I assume you're not an associate of Ted Hope?) is outraged on behalf of a producer from whom he couldn't get the time of day, because the guy promoted Hal Hartley, Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz (we'll leave out Ang Lee, simply because Lee brought production funds to Good Machine, and not the reverse) what further argument on my part is required, as to the unwarranted primacy of producers?

Who is more famous is not a fruitful argument, but I can tell you for certain that the handful of people in the U.S. who have heard of Hal Hartley, Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz know Ted Hope's name quite well. In *other* countries, places where arthouse cinema is actually worth seeing, the names of producers are unimportant, which is as it should be. Here, they write books with titles like "My Killer Life".

"Ted Hope virtually invented the template for the successful serious indie project". I'm not sure what a "sucessful serious indie project" is in the U.S., but if you're right, so much the worse. In some places, it's enough to make great or fine films, without finding the formula for getting into Sundance, followed by oblivion.

But really now, these arguments shouldn't be necessary at all. American indie films are so worthless as a whole that it's hard to believe anyone would defend the mechanism which produces them.

So I guess I would turn your speculation back on you. Where are *you* coming from? What interest do you have in defending mediocrity? Or do you really like this stuff?