The term "filmmaking"

[Brian Dzyak]

Bryan: Wow, that actually sounds really sad. Ever thought about hanging out with other people?

 

:) I like to meet all kinds of people, and thankfully, I've had that opportunity to do just that across the globe. While those people who are in the business are interesting because of our like-minded interests, I also enjoy the company of "non-combatants" (non-film industry people) because talking about movies in any way all the time gets terribly boring for me. :) I enjoy my work but it isn't my entire life, so sharing time with other types of people is important.

 

Not only that, but having a life outside of the insular film/tv/entertainment community provides insight into what our intended audiences/markets are really interested in. Movie people who only know about movies and other movie people can't know what the rest of the world wants to see. The best ideas and stories come from moviemakers who have an awareness of life beyond the entertainment world. Of course there are the scant few non-combatants who have a little interest in the particulars of what happens behind the scenes, but for the most part, it's the stories and the movie stars that matter the most to them. So staking a claim in terminology and credits benefits only those who are inside the business mostly as self-marketing tools in order to continue up the success-ladder. Few others care, and that's okay. :)

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian, are you ever gonna stop hatin on the purists? Honestly, being a purist can refer to digital shooters who use only digital through the whole process and refuse to do a film out. Guess everyone forgets this point.

 

Hmm, I don't that anybody has forgotten that, but the thread was started by a film purist so that's the direction the discussion has gone. :)

 

I'm interested in your choice of the word "refuses" mostly because it assumes the same kind of attitude that film purists tend to display. It assumes that someone makes the active decision to not do something because they feel that the process they are using is superior to the alternatives. I'm sure that there is some of that going on, but (without statistics to support this :) ) I have to assume that many aspiring moviemakers use video and HD because they can't afford the cost of acquiring images on filmstock (buying it and following through on the entire process). Electronic image acquisition provides a way for these people to put their stories on a screen when they otherwise might not have been able to.

 

I know, the next argument is that many of those perhaps shouldn't be made. But the same argument can be thrown back at a lot of film-movies too. Anyone who picks up a camera clearly has something to say that is important to THEM. It is the rare few "movies" which are made well enough to be entertaining enough to a broader audience to merit attention.

 

The overall point is that if someone wants to make a movie, they should be permitted to do it in anyway they can without fear of being insulted because of the methods they choose to use or have to use due to financial parameters. As someone once said, "It's the story, stupid." Arguing over terminology or technology misses the point of why we're all supposed to be in this business.

[Walter Graff]

I took my wife to a fireworks display recently. With each exploding shell she asked "what is that one called". My response each time was "I don't know". And in between asking she tried to find the terms for each display... a palm tree, bees, etc. It reminded me of this new generation of filmmakers who is so into the logistics, and semantics of film that they forgot how to make films because they never get to that point since there is so much to worry about "is it RED", "Is it ten bit", "Is it CMOS", etc. IT was not enjoyable watching the display with my wife asking the same non sequitor questions. I finally turned to her and said "i just like to enjoy the show".

 

In the old days we used to watch as many films from 100 years of film making as we could to learn how to be a film maker. Today we don't make films just talk about cameras and a bunch of other nonsense that has little to do with the art.

[Dan Salzmann]

In the old days we used to watch as many films from 100 years of film making as we could to learn how to be a film maker. Today we don't make films just talk about cameras and a bunch of other nonsense that has little to do with the art.

 

I really agree with this. The consumerist formatting of contemporary has really struck. Yes it is important to understand the tools and techniques but it is just as if not more important to understand WHY we are using those tools and techniques.

Guess it is easier to be a gearhead than an artist.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I took my wife to a fireworks display recently. With each exploding shell she asked "what is that one called". My response each time was "I don't know". And in between asking she tried to find the terms for each display... a palm tree, bees, etc. It reminded me of this new generation of filmmakers who is so into the logistics, and semantics of film that they forgot how to make films because they never get to that point since there is so much to worry about "is it RED", "Is it ten bit", "Is it CMOS", etc. IT was not enjoyable watching the display with my wife asking the same non sequitor questions. I finally turned to her and said "i just like to enjoy the show".

 

In the old days we used to watch as many films from 100 years of film making as we could to learn how to be a film maker. Today we don't make films just talk about cameras and a bunch of other nonsense that has little to do with the art.

 

Last time friends and I were hanging out watching fireworks, we talked about which metals gave the different colors, copper, magnesium, titanium, etc... different strokes for different folks.

 

Not to disagree but a long time ago, there weren't nearly as many outlets for entertainment, so film was the only real media for discussion. Today it is saturated with audio and visual noise, pick any page on Myspace or Youtube. Even cinemas have really been changed/victimized/bastardized by the big summer 'blockbuster' to which the studios rely heavily on for the DVD/satellite/cable distribution.

 

There are still small pockets not of 'purists' or elitists but people who talk of art in terms of emotional force given by paintings, sculptures, nature, music, who will make films that have something to say in a totally new way....

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Hmm, I don't that anybody has forgotten that, but the thread was started by a film purist so that's the direction the discussion has gone. :)

 

No this was actually started as an homage to George Carlin, who saw through the bullshit of things and let you know about it in a direct, meaningful, and hilarious manner. Carlin was wonderful at words and language.

 

I was just looking for a little truth and honesty in the language as the word 'filmmaker' has become something that it doesn't really mean.

 

I know, the next argument is that many of those perhaps shouldn't be made. But the same argument can be thrown back at a lot of film-movies too. Anyone who picks up a camera clearly has something to say that is important to THEM.

 

A million zeros still adds up to zero.

 

As someone once said, "It's the story, stupid."

 

As Forest Gump said, 'It takes one to know one.'

 

Arguing over terminology or technology misses the point of why we're all supposed to be in this business.

 

Disagreement and discussion are fundamental to freedom of expression. Which I would argue, IS why the media exists.

 

By your comment, you appear to be nothing more than a "....major sponsor and manufacture of bullshit, the businessman, have you ever seen that big bullshit businessman smile..." George Carlin

[Brian Dzyak]

No this was actually started as an homage to George Carlin, who saw through the bullshit of things and let you know about it in a direct, meaningful, and hilarious manner. Carlin was wonderful at words and language.

 

I was just looking for a little truth and honesty in the language as the word 'filmmaker' has become something that it doesn't really mean.

 

Well, as has been noted by others, "filmmaker" by strict definition refers to the technicians who actually make film...the stuff that MOVIEMAKERS use in cameras to acquire images for whatever story they are trying to tell. So with that in mind, somebody did exactly as you suggest above and hijacked the true definition to mean something which is very inaccurate. That those who acquire images electronically followed suit should be no surprise as neither are technically correct.

 

 

 

Disagreement and discussion are fundamental to freedom of expression. Which I would argue, IS why the media exists.

 

Your opinion, which for you, is perfectly fine. I'm sure others might also be inclined to add that media exists for many reasons, like to inform and to entertain, in addition to "discussion." Making "movies" and other types of "motion picture" media is done to entertain and inform and those who create each are... well, us! :)

[Walter Graff]

I haven't had a rotary dial phone since I was about 16 yet we still "dial the phone". A look in a dictionary will show that filming come under multiple definitions from the art of 'filming' which has no definition as to the type or medium the scene is recording on, but rather just a general term for the art to 'filming making' which means shooting a story with a film camera. One hundred plus years of 'film making' has entrenched the word to mean anything regarding picking up a video or film camera and shooing and I doubt that is going to change in our lifetimes or forever past that. And while the box in front of me is not a Kleenex brand, I will refer to it as Kleenex. And the velco I used last night on the grip of my Varicam was not really Velcro because it was not made by the company that makes Velcro, but instead was the generic which is technically called hook and loop fasteners, Was I wrong to use the term Velcro or is it simply semantics that has little to do with art? Would I be more accurate if I called Velcro hook and loop and would I be more accurate calling the art of picking up a video camera for the purpose of making a dramitc story videotaping? Yea it might not be the right word for a crossword, but I don't think life is about 7 down, 6 letter word for device to record a person on film.

[George Ebersole]

For George Carlin...

 

Filmmaking used to be a term associated with moving pictures, on which the media they were made. You know FILM!! That combination of chemicals, dyes, and filters once developed has a latitude untouched by any digital process. Now anyone who can grab a digital camera can be called a "filmmaker". WTF is that about? Did I miss something? Since when did an 10-bit sensor with 6-bit latitude, and 0-bit depth of field be considered "filmmaking"?

My first camera was a windup Super-8 Bolex that my photography instructor gave to me when I was 11. From there I moved onto home video equipment. But, when I was shooting video, even for me and my friends, I didn't think of myself as a film maker.

 

Likewise when I did professional camera ops I was manning tube cameras for BETACAM SP shoots, I didn't consider myself a film maker. The term filmmaker didn't sit well with me. At best I was a videographer. I never really considered myself a film maker in the professional sense.

 

Filmmakers are people who are producing and shooting their own stuff, and are shooting it on film.

 

Just my take.

[Justin Hayward]

Filmmakers are people who are producing and shooting their own stuff, and are shooting it on film.

 

Trouble is, I always shoot 35mm professionally. It's my job. Whether I'm gaffing a commercial or DPing one, it's always on 35mm. The feature I'm finishing right now was shot many different formats (I sometimes forget which camera was used for certain scenes). I've had two mildly successful short "movies" that got me the money to make this feature. One was shot on film and one shot on video.

 

What am I?

[George Ebersole]

Trouble is, I always shoot 35mm professionally. It's my job. Whether I'm gaffing a commercial or DPing one, it's always on 35mm. The feature I'm finishing right now was shot many different formats (I sometimes forget which camera was used for certain scenes). I've had two mildly successful short "movies" that got me the money to make this feature. One was shot on film and one shot on video.

 

What am I?

That's what gets me. I've rarely, if ever, seen myself as a film maker. When I was working lots I always saw myself as a hired hand; a crew member. Film maker was (is) a term used by people outside the industry. One of my first gigs was working on a rap video many years back. I helped setup lights, clipped on gels, moved flats, pushed the dolly around, even stood in for the models and actors being shot, and racked focus. But I wasn't a filmmaker.

 

That title went to the guy flipping the bill and directing the thing. But even then, to me at least, it connotates (in a good way) an amateur; i.e. someone who's making movies for the fun of it, or for art's sake. To me it doesn't apply to any of the directors I worked for who were cranking out commercials or industrials, if they were shot on 35mm or BETACAM SP.

 

I guess the only time I ever saw myself as a "film maker" was when I was shooting my student projects. But I'm babbling now. :)

[Justin Hayward]

To me it doesn't apply to any of the directors I worked for who were cranking out commercials or industrials, if they were shot on 35mm or BETACAM SP.

the only time I ever saw myself as a "film maker" was when I was shooting my student projects.

 

Do you consider anyone a filmmaker outside the student world?

[George Ebersole]

Do you consider anyone a filmmaker outside the student world?

Oh sure. Filmmaker, again to me, is anyone who's in charge of the project and creating a project for artistic purposes. But that's just my opinion. :)

[Justin Hayward]

Filmmaker, again to me, is anyone who's in charge of the project and creating a project for artistic purposes.

 

Which makes it a universal term.

[Brian Dzyak]

Oh sure. Filmmaker, again to me, is anyone who's in charge of the project and creating a project for artistic purposes. But that's just my opinion. :)

 

Interesting, but who gets to decide who is in charge? ;)

[David Rakoczy]

Interesting, but who gets to decide who is in charge? ;)

 

 

The people with the Money.

[Ruairi Robinson]

The people with the Money.

 

Awesome, so the only true filmmakers are the financiers.

[David Rakoczy]

Awesome, so the only true filmmakers are the financiers.

 

 

How did you deduce that? The question was 'Who gets to decide who is in charge'. Slow down Ruairi...

[Jon Schweigart]

I've come to the conclusion that people who prefer to shoot film have a problem with people who use video calling their projects "films" because they feel the amount of work they put into acquiring an image was far greater than someone using a video camera. So someone getting the same sort of credit is insulting to them. Most people believe in giving credit where credit is do and "don't let me hear you call him a filmmaker when he's never even touched emulsion." Those who use film don't want video users to be compared to them because they feel it's a totally different art and it's not fair to compare the two. I personally prefer to use film because I understand the aesthetic differences between the two. Most film purists are artists and they want total control and credit from where an image comes from. They hate the fact that one will use digital tools and modify things and take credit for it's alterations when someone who made something on film actually altered the image physically himself and gets the same acknowledgment. I personally feel that anyone can be a filmmaker no matter what tools they use to acquire moving pictures and like many others have said it's all semantics. Others have said animations aren't films and I think this is wrong. If the animation was recorded by a film camera would you still be opposed to call it a film? Just because it doesn't use lighting and real people doesn't mean it's not a film. I bet many experimental filmmakers would also be insulted by this statement. They shoot on film but don't necessarily use actors and lights and still think of themselves as filmmakers. I think people need to embrace both if they plan on making a living in this business in the near future.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

To me, the answer is very easy and simple. If what you create in the end on whatever media has a true deep emotional impact on the audience then you can be a 'filmmaker'. Anything else is not.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Jon Schweigart]

To me, the answer is very easy and simple. If what you create in the end on whatever media has a true deep emotional impact on the audience then you can be a 'filmmaker'. Anything else is not.

 

Why can't those who don't live up to that be bad filmmakers? If I don't like a filmmaker I'll just call him a hack.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Why can't those who don't live up to that be bad filmmakers? If I don't like a filmmaker I'll just call him a hack.

 

If you FAIL at something, it is not your profession. Comprendez? If you fail to make the union, you don't say you belong to the AFL-CIO.

 

It is not about what YOU would call the person, it is what the person would claim to be as a profession.

 

Get a passport travel to Instanbul, fill out the customs form with your Profession "Bad Filmmaker" after they stop laughing and you are stripped searched and thrown into a Turkish prison, ala, Midnight Express.

[Jon Schweigart]

I know of many successful filmmakers out there who's work is cliche, uninspiring, and cheesy and somehow manage to keep making movies. But all people are different. Many people love the filmmakers I were referring to and would definitely say "They're the best filmmakers ever." My point is, these filmmakers get many theatrical releases of their films and would be considered successful but are still bad filmmakers to the critics and majority of film enthusiasts. Filmmaker is not a title you give someone when they reach a certain point of success or talent. It's a title you give someone "who makes films."

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I know of many successful filmmakers out there who's work is cliche, uninspiring, and cheesy and somehow manage to keep making movies.

 

You can pile up as much bullshit as you want, that doesn't make you a 'filmmaker'. A politician or lawyer... maybe.

 

My point is, these filmmakers get many theatrical releases of their films and would be considered successful but are still bad filmmakers to the critics and majority of film enthusiasts.

 

A million zeros are still zero.

 

But all people are different. Many people love the filmmakers I were referring to and would definitely say "They're the best filmmakers ever."

 

So I wouldn't. Hacks, junk pedlers, corporate prostitutes, maybe.

 

Filmmaker is not a title you give someone when they reach a certain point of success or talent. It's a title you give someone "who makes films."

 

Disagree. You don't "give it", you earn it from the audience.

 

I say make all the insignficant noise and junk you want, I'm all for it, it will make my work stand out even more.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Jon Schweigart]

I say make all the insignficant noise and junk you want, I'm all for it, it will make my work stand out even more.

 

If only everyone thought that way.