Original films

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if your definition of "narrative" is simply that it has "structure" then that's a pretty broad definition that covers a lot more than stories. You said that if a film had no story then it's not a movie, but now you seem to be suggesting that anything with structure is a narrative. Or you definition of "story" is so broad as to cover almost anything with a beginning, middle, and end. So are you saying that "Chronos" and "Baraka" have no structure?

 

But what's the point of this discussion? Why the need to define "movies"? What value is there is separating things into "movies" and "not-movies"? Is there some satisfaction in saying "that's not a movie"? Are you telling us that in a discussion of movies, we can't talk about things that you won't define as movies even if we do?

[Mark Allen]

Edward Jay Epstein published an article yesterday on this (original) topic.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2135544/

 

 

 

On the tangential subject of structure, I would submit that many filmmakers and editors would say that the mere process of putting two images together on the screen is the processes of creating a structure. Whether these two images were shot 2 months apart at different locations and are trying to seem like one cohesive location. Or if they were shot in the same room, the same day and intended to be completely unrelated. Or if they are completely unrelated or if they are the same shot just 48 frame later. You are creating a structure and are, in fact, telling a story therefore even if you feel what the film or video contains as content has no story.

 

If you have no cuts, then it's up to whatever happens in front of the camera.

 

But we humans have this crazy ability to see objects out of clouds and stains - we'll put stories and recognizable images to just about anything. Hard to keep us from seeing anything as a story. Whether we are affected by it on some level, no that's a different question.

[James Steven Beverly]

let me first say the structure and plot are 2 different things, Structure being the framework and plot being the specifices, but like rod and piston they must work together to drive the story forward and although I say structure is nessesary to a movie, structure alone is not what makes a movie, going back to the metal dropping on a tin roof, nails may follow ballbearings which follow wrenches, this is structure but it is not nessarily drama. Plot or story if you like is the essental element to creating drama. Plot is, at it's most elemental form, confict and without confict, drama does not exist and therefore there is no movie. A travel documentary is a travel documentary but when you use elements that humans relate to as story it transends the mere documetary format and becomes drama, if for example you are folloing a group of penguins in Antartica and you focus them in the beautiful ice-covered wasteland in all it's splendor, you will have a stunning visual record to the farthest reachest of the southern hemosphere but if you infuse the struggle of these small creatures to survive in the world's most hostile environment, show the caring parents struggling to keep their children alive and express the community that all life shares, you create drama and an award winning film called March Of the Penguins. Of course it is proper to discuss all forms of moving images here, this is Cinematography.com after all and therefore the creation of those images is this site's primary focus, but in this particular instance we are dicscussing originality in the context of popular movies and in this context the focus is on drama (comedy being included) My definition of plot is broad because plot can BE broad and at the outer edges barely distiquishable, but is is there if one looks closely enough. Narrative is not simply structure bit the synergy of structure, plot and exicution working together to build a whole that gives birth to drama and ellisits emotional envolvement from the audience, the single vision of how the story or plot is presented must be personal to be effective, but It MUST relate back to the broader human condition in order to be considered drama. Human being find order is choas naturally, there have been studies that show this is a survival trait left over from our days as hunters (the ability to distiquish shapes in clutter is very useful looking of camoflagued animals in a forest) but just because a cloud looks "very like a whale" that still doen't make the appearence of the whale drama. It's what the whale does that makes it drama or what the people seeing the whale do of how the appearance of the whale affects their world that makes what they see in the cloud drama. (Very interesting article by the way, all hail the almighty dollar) Athough we may admire the genius of Chronos and Baraka for their sheer visual splendor you cannot in all good consience call them drama. Although you may call the images within the piece, dramatic, the piece in total, is not. It may be art, but not drama. Originality in movies refers to drama, perhaps in visual style, perhaps in subject matter, perhaps in perspective, perhaps within the narrative juxtiposition and contrast, perhaps in content, but always within the context of drama. That is the structure I'm talking about and there is value in defining, not so much what isn't a movie, but what IS a movie because that is what an audience goes to see. It is important in that when a filmmaker deviates too far from this definition the he aleinates his audience. There's a famous quote from Orsen Wells that goes "My God how they'll love me in twenty years' and he was right, while there is no denying Wells' genius, even he knew, the world was not ready for the genius his films at the time he made them. Audiences today are conditioned to accept much more in the way of variation and the unexpected, but I can never foresee a time when structure and plot will be abandoned in favor of spetacular images, although, when these spectacular images are combined with intriguing plot and great exicution, then a movie transend it's time and becomes iconic, Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars, 2001, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Jaws all will be remembered long after Chronos and Baraka have become footnote in film history. That is not to say these films have no value, Their visual impact may be inspirational to who has never seen anything like that before and may lend genius to his work, it's just that if we want to make something different and original, we must never forget who we're making these films for. If just for ourselves, then THAT my friend, is where you should ask "What's the point"

Edited February 9, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Jaan Shenberger]

... That is the structure I'm talking about and there is value in defining, not so much what isn't a movie, but what IS a movie because that is what an audience goes to see...

 

not to flame, but... you make some good points, but the above quote is a very weak foundation to base your arguement.

 

you don't consider unconventional non-narrative films to be worthy of classification amongst "jaws" or "star wars" or "ishtar". that's fine. you're certainly not alone. but if a paying audience is the primary criteria, then your arguement is very weak considering that such criteria is barely defineable, greatly stratified, and constantly changing.

 

i think the proper term for what you describe is "product" rather than "movie'.

[James Steven Beverly]

not to flame, but... you make some good points, but the above quote is a very weak foundation to base your arguement.

 

you don't consider unconventional non-narrative films to be worthy of classification amongst "jaws" or "star wars" or "ishtar". that's fine. you're certainly not alone. but if a paying audience is the primary criteria, then your arguement is very weak considering that such criteria is barely defineable, greatly stratified, and constantly changing.

 

i think the proper term for what you describe is "product" rather than "movie'.

I don't concider your comments a flame this is a discussion and I will be happy to debate this point. It's not that I concider those films to be unworthy of classification among the iconoic films I mentioned (Ishtar wasn't on my list though, or anyone elses for that matter unless it'sa list of the worst films of all times list) I said they wouldn't be more than a footnote. This is not to say they weren't interesting or inovative just that NOBODY SAW THEM. Like it or not we are in a artform that has a bottom line. It is thee most expensive artform there is. So if you want to stay an artist you had better sell your "product" to SOMEONE. Even Harmony Korine's films which are exceptinally original and definately not mainstream, got sold to someone. The other point I think you missed is that becoming so arty that you alienate your audience is just a form of intellectual masterbation. Something done for your own pleasure with no concideration for anyone else. Great filmmakers, innovative filmmakers genius filmmakers want to take their audience into their worlds with them, Take David Cronnanberg's Naked lunch or Videodrome Both bizzar and disturbing but you can't take your eyes of the screen, take David Lynch's Lost Highway, Wild at Heart, Ereaserhear not to mention Blue Velvet, ALL strange, but people SAW them. The audience may have been a bit put off, but they weren't alienated and in the end, That's why we make films, to present to an audience. If there is nothing more that beautiful pictures to see, an audience will not stay interested long. The proper term for what I described is BOTH movie AND product. Movie for the people who will see it and Product of the busenessmen who will sell them tickets. They go hand in hand. They always have sence the first films were made 110 years ago and they always will until something in the future replaces films. and you better remember that unless you want to project movies on the wall of your livingroom while patting yourself on the back and telling youself how great you are. Without an audience to appricieate his work, a filmmaker is nothing.

[Jaan Shenberger]

art inherently has no obligatory relation to commerce. the existence of an audience, and the relative size of the audience has no significance to the critera of what is art. and art inherently has nothing to do with the career path or financial ambition of its maker. these are all things we've managed to impose upon art in order to comodify it, just as with everything else.

 

again, you're thinking of "product".

 

when you say that aspiring filmmakers need to strongly consider the marketability of any future projects if they want a large audience for their film, or if they want to make a living at it, or if they wish to secure financing for other projects, then i think you're absolutely correct. but according to your arguement, a pawn shop billboard seen by millions is superior in significance to a degas painting that happens to hang in a lightly frequented museum causing it to only be seen by hundreds.

 

have you ever even seen any "experimental" cinema? for many, it's like seeing a degas after passing by the huge pawn shop billboard that they pass by every day on their way to work.

[James Steven Beverly]

art inherently has no obligatory relation to commerce. the existence of an audience, and the relative size of the audience has no significance to the critera of what is art. and art inherently has nothing to do with the career path or financial ambition of its maker. these are all things we've managed to impose upon art in order to comodify it, just as with everything else.

 

again, you're thinking of "product".

 

when you say that aspiring filmmakers need to strongly consider the marketability of any future projects if they want a large audience for their film, or if they want to make a living at it, or if they wish to secure financing for other projects, then i think you're absolutely correct. but according to your arguement, a pawn shop billboard seen by millions is superior in significance to a degas painting that happens to hang in a lightly frequented museum causing it to only be seen by hundreds.

 

have you ever even seen any "experimental" cinema? for many, it's like seeing a degas after passing by the huge pawn shop billboard that they pass by every day on their way to work.

 

What is considered art is not the decision of the artist but of those who view it. A pawnbroker's sign is not art because those who saw it decided it is not art however a Campbell's soup can (Worhal's) may be art because people who see it decide it's art but If a Tree falls in the forest and there's noone ther to hear it does it make a sound? If art is make made and there is no audience to see it is there art? NO because the artist does not decide it's art, the audience does! So if noone sees your work IT AIN'T ART ,at least not until many people see it and there is a general cosensis that it is art. Until then it is only art to those who decide, for them, it's art. If artists decided what art is, everything made would be art and the world would be filled wth "Degas". True art is something that that speaks so universially to people that the throng WANT to see it and must see it again and again. The ceiling of the Cistine chaple is art because the world says it's art and to say that art has no obligitory relation to commerce is nieve, the very definision of art is that it has value, it uplifts, redeems, enlightens, ponders, warns, evolves and a miriad of other things for those whos see it . It infects the human soul and there are alway those who pay for such things, from the shalmans of the ancient past , paided in food wor there thier stories and petrogliphs, to the patrions of the renossiaince who sponsered Motzart and Sheakespeare, to the waitress who pays $12.50 to see Brokeback Mountain. Art is in the eye of the beholder and if noone beholds it, there is no art. I've seen a lot of experimental films, some inspiring, some just plain garbage, but I've never seen an experimantal film I would concider a masterpiece. There were never ant Verdigo's or Casablanca's in the whole lot, but there were however flashes of genius and inspiration and therein lies thier value.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Jaan Shenberger]

again, you bring up some very valid points, but i think there's simply a huge difference in our fundamental beliefs about art...

 

If a Tree falls in the forest and there's noone ther to hear it does it make a sound?

 

yes, it most certainly does.

(curtain closes in front of me)

 

best wishes,

jaan

[dd3stp233]

Dictionary Definition of

ART

 

NOUN: 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: ?Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice? (Joyce Carol Oates). 8a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing Illustrative material.

 

 

By definition an artist can call their piece a work of art. If it is good or bad art is left to be judged by an audience. Atonal compositions are considered music by some. Where would great classical music be without discord, try listening to Wagner or Beethoven. They were somewhat controversial back in their day.

 

Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. So he didn't produce art until after he was dead by capt vid definition. The greatest art, most people wouldn't be able to understand, it's ahead of its time. Look at Oskar Fischinger films. Many just sound and color moving, hand painted, mostly abstract. Influenced Disney into making Fantasia, which he also help work on. Verdigo's or Casablanca are not experimental films they are commercial film. The general movie going public are not educated and intelligent enough to appreciate a great work of experimental film. Look at what is considered by literary scholars to be the best books in the last century and not one will have been on a best seller list.

Edited February 10, 2006 by dd3stp233

[James Steven Beverly]

Dictionary Definition of

ART

 

NOUN: 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: ?Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice? (Joyce Carol Oates). 8a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing Illustrative material.

By definition an artist can call their piece a work of art. If it is good or bad art is left to be judged by an audience. Atonal compositions are considered music by some. Where would great classical music be without discord, try listening to Wagner or Beethoven. They were somewhat controversial back in their day.

 

Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. So he didn't produce art until after he was dead by capt vid definition. The greatest art, most people wouldn't be able to understand, it's ahead of its time. Look at Oskar Fischinger films. Many just sound and color moving, hand painted, mostly abstract. Influenced Disney into making Fantasia, which he also help work on. Verdigo's or Casablanca are not experimental films they are commercial film. The general movie going public are not educated and intelligent enough to appreciate a great work of experimental film. Look at what is considered by literary scholars to be the best books in the last century and not one will have been on a best seller list.

 

So you saying art can only be aprieciated by Intellectuals? Art is not intellectual. Art is Viseral. Art is emotional, Art is insirational. These are not intellectual discriptions. Who sits there and thinks "This is ART therefore I must feel Joy or is it pain!!" LOOK at your definitions," Human effort","affects the sense of beauty", "aesthetic value", " human works of beauty considered as a group". These are not singular in nature, they speak in terms of the universiality of reponce or effort. At their core is humanity. THEE human not A human's. Van Gogh never did sell a painting except to his brother, so NO, AT THE TIME his work was NOT art, in fact when Altman did "Vincent and Theo", he had art students reproduce Van Gogh's work then left it out in the rain, tossed it around and even went so far as to put his foot though one piece, anything to "Not treat it like great art, because it certainly wasn't concidered great art at the time" (to paraphase a quote from Altman I saw in an interview a while back). It ONLY BECAME art when THE WORLD DECIDED it was art, so YOU"VE made my point for me. ART is in the eye of the beholder. When enough people decide something is art then that's what it becomes, it is therfore NOT the artist's place to call his work art it is the Audience's place to say it is art. Van Gogh's contempareries said his work wasn't art and so It WASN"T, we say it is, and therefore IT IS. The same thing with Wagner and Beethoven. Where our ancesters undeucated, stupid perhaps? Many of them understood greek and latin and read Aristatol, Socraties and Plato. That's more than I've done, I don't know about you. Who knows what people will think a thousand years from now, perhaps Van Gogh will seem to primative to be concidered art. The definition of sound is not the vibration, but the detection of that vibration. How do I know this? Because a deaf person cannot detect sound and so for them, there is no sound. So NO if a tree fall's in the forest and there is noone to hear it, there is no sound just like there is no art for people who can't see art. I already stated that fine experimental films may inspire genius and I also already stated that some art aleinated it's audience because they weren't ready for it when I quoted Orsen Wells, that also does not counter my argument, it if fact bolsters it. IT IS NOT ART UNTIL PEOPLE DECIDE IT"S ART. I never said Vertigo and Casablanca were experimental films, I said they were masterpieces, as in, exceptionally great works of art, and that NO experimental film has ever achieved that statis and I doubt that one ever will. These works ARE masterpieces BECAUSE they have touched such a broad range of people. Without this trait the term masterpiece cannot ever be accuratly applied. Commerce and art will always be tied together, Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, and this will never change.

[Dan Goulder]

I'd like to add the movie "Stay"(2005) to the original films list, particularly in terms of editing. The use of morphing from one scene to the next, as opposed to the 'standard' approach of cuts and dissolves, was pretty inspired, and cool to watch.

[Jason Debus]

I also liked Stay, even though I think the idea of the movie isn't entirely original (Jacob's Ladder and Occurance at Owl Creek come to mind.) I agree the editing style and transitions were highly original but also put many people off of the movie. Being a film student I thought it was a fun way to see someone breaking the 'rules' and still serving the story.

 

On the Art vs Commerce issue, I'm taking 'History of Motion Pictures' at school, and the 'thesis' so to speak of the final exam is "THE HISTORY OF MOTION PICTURES IS THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS AND ART". So I get the feeling that at least my school thinks there is some sort of relationship that is important to focus on if you are looking to be a filmmaker. I would love just to be able to focus on the 'Art' aspect but it sounds like I need to be versed in the business side as well if I want to eat.

 

That being said I see a big difference between an 'art' movie like The Virgin Spring which I just watched, to a movie like Firewall, a Hollywood thriller that just came out in the States (that I did not see by the way). As a hopeful future filmmaker I hope I can find a balance between the two.

[Sam Wells]

On the Art vs Commerce issue, I'm taking 'History of Motion Pictures' at school, and the 'thesis' so to speak of the final exam is "THE HISTORY OF MOTION PICTURES IS THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS AND ART".

 

 

 

THE HISTORY OF HIGHER EDUCATION IS THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUSINESS AND KNOWLEDGE.

 

Think they'd like that over the door ? I wonder.

 

-Sam

[Greg Gross]

Yes,

Watched one tonight, "Havana".

Sydney Pollock

Owen Roizman ASC

 

Greg Gross

[dd3stp233]

In late Antiquity the arts consisted of the seven artes liberales, the liberal arts: Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Geometry, Arithmetic, Astronomy, and Music. Philosophy was the mother of them all. On a lower level stood the technical arts like architecture, agriculture, painting, sculpture and other crafts. "Art" as we concieve of it today was a mere craft.

 

Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy at Columbia University ..., believes that today "you can't say something's art or not art anymore. That's all finished." According to the Institutional Theory of Art, "Painters make paintings, but it takes a representative of the art-world to make a work of art. The mysterious is the source of all true art. Maybe because of this we cannot give a clear definition of art. Perhaps one cannot put it into words. Perhaps it's like a mystical experience. Or like Tao.

 

"Brazil" is an original movie and if you read back on what happened before it was released, there is a classic battle between an artists vision and the studio trying to change the film to make it more commercial. Well Gilliam won.

[Dominic Case]

OMG I started this thread, and look what happened.

 

Thank you Captain Video for creating such controversy. If art is creative, then I love the artistic spelling and expression of your emails. If art is original, likewise. I don't agree with a word you say about art, narrative film or physics - except to acknowledge that your argument about Van Gogh would make the postmodernists proud of you. By the way, who said it has to be a masterpiece to be art?

 

But we've got past that flurry, and seem to have settled back to discussion of the 7 - or 9, or 12, or 3, whatever number - of basic plots.

 

To me, an original film (movie, artwork, feature film, motion picture experience, etc) is an original combination of ideas. True there are limited plot structures (good vs evil, search for meaning, a stranger arrives in town, tragedy of a someone brought down by a simple flaw, etc), but that is a very reductionist analysis. Combine a basic plot with a mix of characters, in a different setting and cinematographic style, weave in a contrasting sub-plot, and you do have originality. Just as there are only 26 letters in the alphabet, which can be combined to nearly a million different words (and ever new ones) and unlimited combinations of words to make sentences, poems, speeches, novels, advertising slogans and so on.

 

I doubt if many people would consider Star Wars (well, Ep 4 at least, when it all started) a remake of the Thirty Nine Steps. But it has the same plot. LOTR has too.

 

The Manchurian Candidate remade for no apparent reason, or seeing Bewitched trying to cash in on an old TV series (when did a movie of a TV series ever succeed?), or yet another childrens' classic brought to the screen and destroying the opportunity to IMAGINE the characters - that is the dead underbelly of the film industry today. Thank goodness it's not all undebelly.

[James Steven Beverly]

I LOVE controvery. Controvery puts asses in the seats as they say, but more importantly it makes people think. An open and freeflowing exchange of ideas can only help artists. As for my spelling, it's never been my strong point when I write I'm thinking to fast to stop and get every word spelled correctly. I try to clean it up before I post it but don't spend a lot of time with it and for that I apalogize. I don't really remember mentioning anything about Physics nor do I remember saying that something had to be a masterpiece in order for it to be art, Masterpieces are very rare piece of art that touch people so profoundly and universally that they contiue to do so though the ages, living beyond the time and place in which they were created. Actually I stated that I have never seen a film without a plot and filmed purely for visual impact, that I thought would ever achieve "Masterpiece" statis. As for you not argeeing with me, everyone is entitled to thier opinion even though yours is wrong. But you really don't disagree woth me because all the films you mentioned have traditional plots which is one of my point's. Also that there are no new plots, which you also stated. It's what one does which the tools your given (i.e. plot, stucture chariture, etc) that creates art. As for a Movie made from a TV show that was successful, Idon't know, how about STAR TREK. I think it's had 6 or 7 sequels and also spawned 4 other TV series, one of which, Star Trek TNG, spawned 4 or 5 of it's own movies and then there was The Fugitive, Mission Impossible with it's 3 sequels, Starski and Hutch and The Brady Bunch which also spawned a Sequel and the list goes on, That's why they make them, they've got a built in audeince. You show really read the article that Mark Douglas had the link to on his post. This is the reality of film today, eather learn to work within it or go independent and hope someone (probably one of the smaller distibutors) will buy your work. As Michael Corleone said-"It's not personal Sonny, It's business."

[Luke Prendergast]

Carriage Return please, or Enter for the uneducated.

[Dominic Case]

As John Smith says:

 

Carriage Return please, or Enter for the uneducated.

To explain: your messages are very hard to read. Probably not many people read them.

 

Now, your view of art, sounds, trees etc is very postmodern: in other words, it's about "the death of the author". In your philosophy, things only mean (or signify) what the audience thinks they mean: if there is no audience, there is no message. As you say:

 

if a tree fall's in the forest and there is noone to hear it, there is no sound just like there is no art for people who can't see art.

But your writing style is the opposite. You don't seem to care about the audience. Isn't that what you accuse the "experimental" filmmakers of? as in . . .

 

it's just that if we want to make something different and original, we must never forget who we're making these films for. If just for ourselves, then THAT my friend, is where you should ask "What's the point"

But then you say . .

when I write I'm thinking to fast to stop and get every word spelled correctly

 

So, who are you writing for?

 

Finally . . . .

As for you not argeeing with me, everyone is entitled to thier opinion even though yours is wrong. But you really don't disagree woth me

 

What can I say? Words like shoot, self, and foot come to mind.

[David Sweetman]

Or here's an interesting train of thought:

 

1. Every film exists.

2. If a film exists, it has been originated.

3. Every originated film has a unique origin, and therefore

4. Every single film made is original.

 

I call it, "Inclusive Cinematic Originality"

 

Much more American than your exclusive ideals

Edited February 14, 2006 by David Sweetman

[James Steven Beverly]

As John Smith says:

To explain: your messages are very hard to read. Probably not many people read them.

 

Now, your view of art, sounds, trees etc is very postmodern: in other words, it's about "the death of the author". In your philosophy, things only mean (or signify) what the audience thinks they mean: if there is no audience, there is no message. As you say:

But your writing style is the opposite. You don't seem to care about the audience. Isn't that what you accuse the "experimental" filmmakers of? as in . . .

But then you say . .

So, who are you writing for?

 

Finally . . . .

What can I say? Words like shoot, self, and foot come to mind.

 

Thank you for explaining postmodernism to me, I HAD NO IDEA what you ment. I wear the label of POSTMODERN proudly with a slight deviation from your generalization. Without appreciation from an audience there is no art. If an artist makes his points so obsure that audience is completely unaware of them then again, what's the point? Meaning need not be blatant, but deciferable would be nice. so yes if an author (insert artist, filmmaker, poet, writer what ever you like ) cannot make his statment accesible to an audience, there is no art. As for my spelling , which you seem to be obcessed with, (probably the only valid point you've made) this ain't a srcipt and my meaning seams to get across so it's of little concequince it the whole is not perfect. The content being more important than the exicution, as with John Cassevettes films, the cinematography may mot be perfect but the intent is clear, so no, I have the utmost respect for my audience, just not a lot of time to screw with this. As for shooting one's self in the foot, you just did by misinterpriting what I said, I didn't mean you wheren't TRYING to disagree with me, just that you did a poor job of making your point, you said you disagree with everything I said, then used examples that only boalster my statements. Again intellectualism will never be a substitute for truely understanding what art really is.

[James Steven Beverly]

Or here's an interesting train of thought:

 

1. Every film exists.

2. If a film exists, it has been originated.

3. Every originated film has a unique origin, and therefore

4. Every single film made is original.

 

I call it, "Inclusive Cinematic Originality"

 

Much more American than your exclusive ideals

 

Interesting philosophy, but flawed I think. Number 3, If a film is dirivetive of other films, it has no unique origin, only PERHAPS unique perspective, which again would go to my point that all films are unique perspectives (some less unique than others and some down right plagerism) of previously told stories. What's your take on that ?

Edited February 14, 2006 by Capt.Video

[David Sweetman]

My reasoning behind point number 3 is that no two films (or two scenes, or two shots, or two takes) are created in exactly the same way.

 

Sure, a film's subject matter might be derivitave, but the result that you see on-screen will be completely new.

 

Now, I don't hold to this philosophy in the least, but it just came to me so I had to post it.

[James Steven Beverly]

AY SO I see what you mean. But what about Van Sant's "Psycho" ? Can it be excluded from your theory? I guess shooting it in color, setting it in contemperary surroundings and having different actor's play the roles makes it unique, but that's a stretch. Go ahead, defend your theory that you don't believe in, I've thrown down the gauntlet.

[jijhh]

I totally agree with the recurrence of Being John Malkovich. I might not have caught his name perusing the replies but have we forgotton PT Anderson's films? All original to me.

 

Andrew