I love this quote!!

[James Steven Beverly]

I found this at a UK film industry site:

 

"Film is a manufacturing industry. It's not about theory and most of us are not academics."

 

Were more true words ever spoken? B)

[Brian Drysdale]

I considered it more like the construction industry, since you're also out in all weathers, rather than being inside a factory.

[James Steven Beverly]

:lol: Very true.

[Dominic Case]

"Film is a manufacturing industry. It's not about theory and most of us are not academics."

True but unhelpful.

 

Of course film isn't about theory. Nothing is about theory. Theory is about stuff. So you can have theory about film, and it's perfectly legitimate. But the theory serves the film, not the other way around.

 

If the purpose of the quote is to anti-intellectualise the endeavour of filmmaking, then it is a sweeping generalisation.

 

And while film certainly requires manufacturing, so do buildings, and statues, and books. In every instance there is a lot of relatively non-reflective manufacturing work required, in collaboration with some extremely creative, often intellectual input. In some films more than others.

 

The existence and commercial success (sometimes)of the ridiculous junk that packs-em-in at the multiplexes and dies a death a week later is actually as deserving of theoretical examination as a high art or "poetic" film that struggles to find a mass audience but usually finds a deeply appreciative one.

 

If the purpose of the quote is simply to say that not everyone on set has to be Lars von Trier or Peter Greenaway, then fine. I can't help thinking it's being invested with more meaning than that, though.

[Brian Drysdale]

The problem may be in the cross over between the art (or is it a craft?) and business. Even the term innovation depends on who you're talking to.

[James Steven Beverly]

I think the heart of this quote and the reason I like it so much is that film making is a practical endeavor, real world problem solving on the fly. Pre-planning is essential but no matter how intellectual a script might be, it falls to craftsmen and artisans to translate those intellectual ideas into a visual image no matter what obstacles they might encounter. One of the most prominent examples I can think of is 2001. To be able to communicate those kind of intellectual ideas in visual images shows just how much of a craft film truly is. B)

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Or does it show how much of an art it is :P

 

If I were to say what film "is" I'd say it's a dream we can share with a stranger we'll never meet, but that's just me.

[Dom Jaeger]

 

"Film is a manufacturing industry. It's not about theory and most of us are not academics."

 

 

 

I can understand the appeal of seeing filmmaking as a hands-on craft, but that quote completely ignores the intellectual contributions to the industry. Without the theories underpinning the fields of optics and chemistry, for example, you wouldn't have lenses or film stock. Without highly conceptual directors like Eisenstein or Griffiths you wouldn't have the basic syntax of filmic language that has evolved over a century and which we now take for granted. Without gifted scriptwriters who understand how to use and sometimes subvert the various theories of narrative structure you wouldn't have great scripts. Virtually every great film movement has sprung from a theoretical standpoint at odds with the prevailing mindset. I could go on.

 

Even if the quote is presuming 'film industry' to mean just the crew who do the filming it still seems a narrow view. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have appealed much to the highly intellectual Kubrick, who meticulously researched and planned all his films.

 

As a fundamentally collaborative art-form, surely the best filmmaking is a combination of ideas and practical skills.

[John Sprung]

I considered it more like the construction industry, ....

 

Yes, in many ways:

 

Architect = Writer

 

Developer = Producer

 

General Contractor = UPM

 

Electrician = Electrician

 

Carpenter = Grip

 

Interior Decorator = Production Designer

 

But we have more creative tasks that don't have construction analogs, Director, DP, actors.... And what about post?

 

They have a lot more specialty trades, concrete, roofing, tilesetting.... And what about structural engineering?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Drysdale]

 

But we have more creative tasks that don't have construction analogs, Director, DP, actors.... And what about post?

 

They have a lot more specialty trades, concrete, roofing, tilesetting.... And what about structural engineering?

 

-- J.S.

 

I wouldn't take it as a direct comparison, more what's like trying to get a project done on a set time scale, with a work force of individuals, lots of money pouring into it and the elements are against you.

[Bill DiPietra]

I found this at a UK film industry site:

 

"Film is a manufacturing industry. It's not about theory and most of us are not academics."

 

Were more true words ever spoken? B)

 

 

That's a sad statement. To believe that film is nothing but some kind of technical venture is so narrow-minded that it's nearly laughable.

 

To have the technical know-how to light or edit is great, but that doesn't earn one the title of "artist." I agree that it's a hard term to define, but I do know that creativity, passion and an understanding of certain theoretical principles are a few elements that separate artists from technicians.

[James Steven Beverly]

But we have more creative tasks that don't have construction analogs, Director, DP, actors.... And what about post?

-- J.S.

 

Director-Construction site foreman

 

DP-head painter

 

Actors-Brass doorknobs (just kidding :D )

[James Steven Beverly]

That's a sad statement. To believe that film is nothing but some kind of technical venture is so narrow-minded that it's nearly laughable.

 

To have the technical know-how to light or edit is great, but that doesn't earn one the title of "artist." I agree that it's a hard term to define, but I do know that creativity, passion and an understanding of certain theoretical principles are a few elements that separate artists from technicians.

 

Is there not as much artistry in the building of a house or the construction of a skyscraper or bridge. OF COURSE it's a technical venture, from beginning to end it's a technical venture. What we sell is PRODUCT, plain and simple, no more or less than any other product. There is an arrogance that works against us which is why so many "films" shot on video by "artists" that don't know shot from Shinola, covered from every angle possible because these "artists" have no plan or clear vision and even if they did, they don't have the technical know how to translate that into a PRACTICAL visual image. Stop worrying about whether one is an "artist" or not and spend more time PLANNING how one can turn their intellectual ideas into practical applications. B)

[James Steven Beverly]

I can understand the appeal of seeing filmmaking as a hands-on craft, but that quote completely ignores the intellectual contributions to the industry. Without the theories underpinning the fields of optics and chemistry, for example, you wouldn't have lenses or film stock. Without highly conceptual directors like Eisenstein or Griffiths you wouldn't have the basic syntax of filmic language that has evolved over a century and which we now take for granted. Without gifted scriptwriters who understand how to use and sometimes subvert the various theories of narrative structure you wouldn't have great scripts. Virtually every great film movement has sprung from a theoretical standpoint at odds with the prevailing mindset. I could go on.

 

Even if the quote is presuming 'film industry' to mean just the crew who do the filming it still seems a narrow view. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have appealed much to the highly intellectual Kubrick, who meticulously researched and planned all his films.

 

As a fundamentally collaborative art-form, surely the best filmmaking is a combination of ideas and practical skills.

YES but without practical application, all those lofty Ideals would have remained fodder for intellectual debate, see you just SAID IT, Kubrick meticulously researched and planned his film, taking a practical approach to the complex problems of communicating intellectual ideas as did Eisenstein and Griffith. These men were artisans and craftsmen that used their tools to create functionality in the storytelling process. I consider myself a problem solver more so that an artist. I require MANY people to make my vision come to fruition and an artist almost by definition is a lone individual the difference is I couldn't do my job without the collaboration of others in the film making process.

[Bill DiPietra]

Is there not as much artistry in the building of a house or the construction of a skyscraper or bridge. OF COURSE it's a technical venture, from beginning to end it's a technical venture. What we sell is PRODUCT, plain and simple, no more or less than any other product. There is an arrogance that works against us which is why so many "films" shot on video by "artists" that don't know shot from Shinola, covered from every angle possible because these "artists" have no plan or clear vision and even if they did, they don't have the technical know how to translate that into a PRACTICAL visual image. Stop worrying about whether one is an "artist" or not and spend more time PLANNING how one can turn their intellectual ideas into practical applications. B)

 

I never said today's amateurs who suddenly get their hands on a video-camera and upload their "work" to youtube are artists. Far from it. That is one of the many problems that the art and craft of filmmaking has encountered in recent years. But that is a dilemma for another thread.

 

Your statement that all you do is "sell product" makes it sound like you consider yourself a businessman and nothing more, James. I honestly don't know you that well, so don't take offense if I have misinterpreted. But that's how it reads. I really don't get the appeal that you seem to have for this quote. By supporting it you are selling the craft of filmmaking short. Yes, filmmaking is a business. But for many it is an artful craft. That's how I (and I think many others on this board) have always perceived it. Real filmmaking is not merely an assembly line of technicians creating a product for the masses, even though that is exactly how studios see it.

 

A true filmmaker should always see beyond the business and burn with a passion to create something that he or she believes will be an intelectual elevation for all who view it in its finished form. I have been touched by that feeling many times over from the many films I seen in my lifetime. That is artistry. Do you honestly believe that every time it was just a misinterpretation on my part and that all I was reacting to was technical prowess?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Bill DiPietra

[James Steven Beverly]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, you can't make yourself an artist. The audience decides what is art and what isn't so no it is not a misinterpretation on your part, is you prerogative or more accurately your visceral reaction to the technical prowess that makes it an artful craft and even in that statement you acknowledge it is first and foremost a craft.

 

I DO very much consider myself a businessman, so it's hard to take offense at my recognition of the practical necessities inherent in the film industry. I think anyone who doesn't consider business realities of the single most expensive artform in existence is setting themselves up for a very rude awakening indeed. Like it or not, we do make product and it needs to be product someone is buying otherwise we are OUT of the movie making business. UNFORTUNATELY we do not make a product that has a predicable market or a long shelf life so all we can do is go with our own gut instincts and hope someone else will feel as we do about the work.

Edited September 11, 2010 by James Steven Beverly

[Mike Lary]

"Film is a manufacturing industry. It's not about theory and most of us are not academics."

 

That's about as valid as a fry cook's perception of the culinary arts.

[James Steven Beverly]

That's about as valid as a fry cook's perception of the culinary arts.

Well since this PARTICULAR fry cook has a lot more experience than you and I put together, I'd venture to say his "perception" is pretty clear. But setting that aside, despite working in the culinary "arts", I have YET to meet a chef who referred to him or herself as an artist. Most seem to be quite modest when with regards to their station. B)

Edited September 11, 2010 by James Steven Beverly

[Mike Lary]

Well since this PARTICULAR fry cook has a lot more experience than you and I put together, I'd venture to say his "perception" is pretty clear.

Worker bees within the industry who by their own admission do not engage creatively with the medium are in no position to make sweeping statements about the art form.

[James Steven Beverly]

Well, aren't we ALL worker bees ultimately serving the audience? Besides, how do you know that the author of this quote isn't DIRECTLY involved in every aspect of the creative process? If YOU sir, consider yourself an artist, so be it. I consider myself a craftsman and artisan, if someone finds art in the work, all the better, but even if they deem the work art, it's not my art, it's the art of every member who worked on the project, from the lowliest PA to the investors that believed enough in the project to fund it because NO ONE in the chain is indispensable, nor are they irreplaceable and a good director knows this.

[Bill DiPietra]

Well, aren't we ALL worker bees ultimately serving the audience? Besides, how do you know that the author of this quote isn't DIRECTLY involved in every aspect of the creative process? If YOU sir, consider yourself an artist, so be it. I consider myself a craftsman and artisan, if someone finds art in the work, all the better, but even if they deem the work art, it's not my art, it's the art of every member who worked on the project, from the lowliest PA to the investors that believed enough in the project to fund it because NO ONE in the chain is indispensable, nor are they irreplaceable and a good director knows this.

 

Can you paste the link to the site that the original quote is from? I'd like to see exactly who prompted this thread...

[James Steven Beverly]

It was prompted by my perception of the realities of making a movie. The quote is part of a collection of quotes from the UK Film Counsel at Skillset.

 

http://www.skillset.org/film/jobs/article_1745_1.asp

[Mike Lary]

Well, aren't we ALL worker bees ultimately serving the audience?

No, some of us serve the story.

Besides, how do you know that the author of this quote isn't DIRECTLY involved in every aspect of the creative process?

It's pretty obvious by the quote. If you want to argue the point, feel free to back up your claim that the person quoted has more experience than both of us combined and tell us who is being quoted. There's no name attached. That quote falls under the header 'employers'. That says nothing about title or experience. That person could be a first year cat wrangler.

it's the art of every member who worked on the project, from the lowliest PA to the investors that believed enough in the project to fund it because NO ONE in the chain is indispensable, nor are they irreplaceable and a good director knows this.

Baloney. A canvas stretcher has no shared creative ownership over the painting that graces the canvas, nor does the paint mixer, nor does the model or the architecture she stands within, nor does the sandwich maker who feeds the artist. 'This is our film' is a cheesy pep talk cliche. And people get fired all the time in the industry. Even directors get fired. Everyone is dispensable.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Perhaps, Mike, not dispensable, but certainly replaceable.

[Hampus Bystrom]

I don't know, it's an alright quote. Seems like it's that attitude which churns out the same old hackneyed movies every year. You can certainly look at filmmaking with that cynical realism, but I prefer to think of it as more magical.