Nicolas Winding Refn and the supremacy of style over story

[Freya Black]

When I say story, I mean plot, the story the movie tells, the backbone of the cinematic expression. It can be crude like "A Fist Full of Dollars" or refined like "The King's Speech". epic like "Dances With Wolves" or introspective like "Good Will Hunting", Hilarious like "Tropic Thunder" or soberingly serious like "Saving Private Ryan", purely wonderful popcorn Like "Star Wars" or a serious comment on the human condition like "Schindler's List". B)

 

Of these I would say the remembered in 30 years ones would be "Star Wars" and "A Fist Full of Dollars". It might stretch to "Schindlers List". I definitely don't rate the chances of "Dances with Wolves", "Good Will Hunting" and especially "Tropic Thunder". The Kings Speech is definitely not in with a chance as it is a bit archaic already and is also British which alone is marks against it. "Saving Private Ryan"...maybe.

 

It depends on what you mean by remembered too. I mean if we are saying that the stuff from the experimental film world isn't big enough to be considered to be remembered, then I think we can probably say the same thing about "The third Man" or "12 Angry Men" or many other films that might be considered classics. I think John Holland was recently commenting in a thread about how all the films mentioned were ones from the last 20 years or so.

 

It gets bit depressing when you look at it but most people are very focused on the latest thing and that seems to be the direction that things are heading in more and more.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Holy shades of John Carpenter.

 

 

Heh heh! :)

 

Freya

[Reuel Gomez]

Hi all,

 

I added Nicolas Winding Refn to the title of this post because he is mostly the reason why I decided to create this thread today, although it deals with a topic that's been on my mind for years and years.

 

In short, I'm really tired of this "story is everything" argument when dealing with any art, but cinema in particular since it is the art I am mostly interested in.

 

Let me be clear here, I don't think narrative cinema is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, I get far more involved into a film if it has a story to tell. I've never been a Stan Brakhage fan for instance, although I can appreciate what he did and still enjoy watching his shorts and documentaries from time to time.

 

So you won't hear me say that "cinema should get rid of the idea of story and be about style only".

 

However, I DO have a problem in the fact that story is the number one reason that brings people to the theater. I do have a problem with the fact that people judge the quality of a film based on the question "Did I like this story or not?" instead of "did I enjoy the cinematography/editing/music/sound/etc. or not?")

 

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that cinema has become a way for people who are too lazy to read books to passively watch a story unravel in front of their tired eyes?

 

Although to me story is certainly the backbone of a movie project, I think that once it's a completed film, it's become about so much more than story. I never judge a film based on the story it tells, but only based on how it tells it (cinematography, sound, editing, acting, directing, set design, etc etc). I don't think it's even fair to judge a movie based on its story, because the story was already there long before it became a movie. I mean how can people judge book adaptations based on their story, when they tell the exact same story that was already told in the book? Did you really enjoy the Lord of the Rings trilogy (if you even did, I know I have mixed feelings about it) because of the story itself, or because of how this story was put on the screen? Isn't what's really important HOW the story from the book was turned into a film?

 

I was watching a film yesterday that a dear friend of mine was involved in, and I absolutely loved the story. The film however, was one of the worst films I have watched in recent memory. Because the cinematography was amateurish, with camera moves and placements that were so obvious you could almost see the guy operating it even better than what he was pointing the camera at, because the highlights were so blown I considered putting sunglasses on... The sound was crap and was muffled as soon as the characters were talking inside a confined space such as a car. The editing was sloppy. And yet, the story, characters and acting were all great. Well, if story really was what mattered the most, then how come I hated this film only because of its technical, stylistic shortcomings?

 

If story really was what made a film good or not, then how come the best script around can be turned into a terrible movie?

 

I'm the greatest fan of David Lynch, a man who conceives his films not as stories, but as images and sounds that end up telling one. But even if you don't understand the story he's telling you, you can still enjoy the experience. The dream-like quality of his films. The filmmaker I'm most excited about nowadays in Nicolas Winding Refn, who revels in style and shoots feature films on 20-page long screenplays (Eraserhead also was a 21-page screenplay by the way). I can't wait to watch Only God Forgives tomorrow, even though it was trashed by critics left and right for being a film that emphasized style over story. That's exactly what I'm in this business for!

 

My favourite movies are all films I enjoy because of their style (Blade Runner for instance) rather than their primary story (I don't care at all about Deckard having to hunt down replicants and I am not involved in his story as a character). Would Blade Runner be as deep a film if it hadn't this predominant human-versus-machine theme? Certainly not! Was this theme derived from the primary story of the film? Certainly! But would the film, its story and themes, be as enjoyable without its killer cinematography and production design? No, it would not. Because those are the elements (amongst others, such as the OST) that made it a good film instead of just a good story.

 

Are you not tired of hearing that "the best cinematography is the one you don't notice"? To me, the best cinematography is the one that floors you by how obvious and magnificent it is.

 

How I would enjoy watching early films at the time they were released, and be awed by the novelty of the technique rather than by their story. Do you think the first movie audiences really enjoyed the fact that this train was entering the La Ciotat train station? Or were they just awed by the sight of this train photographs moving towards them? Did people really about seeing Méliés go to the moon? Or did they just enjoy watching a new form of magic tricks performed in front of them, and scratching their heads over the way they had been accomplished?

 

Cinema has always been about style to me. Style is what matters the most. Story is ultimately important, but secondary. How the story is told, that's what cinema is all about for me.

 

I would really love to read your personal thoughts on this, seeing as most people here are much more experienced than me and have probably pondered over these issues since before I was even born. Is story destroying cinema as an art by imposing those silly structures we hear everyone babbling about all the time ("page XX should have a major plot point happening")? Are movies really meant to be conceived through a screenplay first and images and sounds later? Was cinema always about story?

 

I want to end this very convoluted post by reaffirming that I love stories, and that I want to do this job because it allows me to tell stories. I am in no way saying that story is not important, I'm just saying that style is MORE important than story, and I'd really enjoy discussing this with you, whether you agree or not.

 

Nicolas

Absolutlely, although I believe that both can be done.

[James Steven Beverly]

Sorry about the triple post, but for some reason it is very important for me to get my point across and I have this permanent fear of not being as thorough in my answers as I'd like to be.

 

What's really important about cinema, for me, is the artist behind the art.

 

In the independent film industry, if one would call it an industry at all, the director often is the screenwriter (if there's even a script at all). Which means that the script is written as a temporary capsule that will contain the seed of the film the director intends to water and grow through the use of style. Everything is important, because the story comes from the director in the first place, and as such cannot be dismissed.

 

In the Hollywood industry, the emphasis is often placed on the plot while, paradoxically, it is where the story counts for even less in terms of art. When a director picks up a script, they probably do fall in love with it (unless they just badly need some extra bucks). The story is important to them, however it does not come from them. It is something somebody else has written and that, unless it was supervised or commissioned by the director, had nothing to do with them or their personality in the first place, and could have been picked up by any number of different directors, and would have ended up as as many different films.

 

What I'm interested in when I watch such a film is not the story the screenwriter built when writing the script, because they did not direct this film. Their work started and finished with the script. What i'm really interested in is watching how the director's tastes, emotions, prejudices informed their decisions during the process of turning that script into a film. And those are only apparent through style. This is why to me style is the only thing that matters when I watch such a film (by such a film I mean a film written by someone and directed by someone else). I want to know what the director did with the story that was given to them. I'm no longer interested in what the film says, but only in how that artist chose to tell it.

 

And... that is all.

Oh good GOD, YET another "artist". Artist as a self anointed term bestowed on one's ego is less than worth nothing. An artist, a TRUE artist is someone who has been called an artist by someone else, someone they DON'T KNOW, and then only to whoever DEEMS you to be an artist because they see art within the context of the work and ONLY for that particular work. We are FIRST AND FOREMOST craftsmen who DO NOT work ALONE! A director without a writer and a cinematographer and a set designer and a costumer and a hair stylist and an art designer and the composer anf the FX artists and the sound FX artist and a model maker and a producer and the several other hundreds of jobs on a film set that makes the whole damn thing WORK is NOTHING!! The idea of a director as an artist is an illusion. The director is the ringmaster of the circus. His vision is essential to the production but without the supporting elements that surround him, the production would collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane. Would Blade Runner have been as artistic if it were made by another director, HELL YES it!! If Kubrick had directed it, it would have been incredible, different but visually stunning, If Spielberg had gotten he script is would have been mind blowing. If Coppola had been given the chance to direct it, it could have been REALLY interesting and amazing. What YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YET, is style without substance is intellectual masturbation that serves ONLY the "artist's" own ego. STORY is the SUBSTANCE, STYLE is the Flash. Style and story and two completely different things that MUST BR COMBINED to make the movie work. You CAN NOT substitute ONE for the OTHER!! Style CAN NOT BE TURNED INTO STORY and more than a firecracker can be turned into a dirt road!! and story may be MADE stylish but will always retain it's direction and flow. If you want to change one element into another I recommend alchemy or nuclear fusion, you'll have far better luck than with film making. The reason you had to write 3 LONG posts is you're having trouble justifying what you're saying. So far you keep telling me THAT you can translate style into a great movie irregardless of story, but so far you haven't told me HOW you can substitute style for story and that's because YOU CAN'T. You (well maybe not you, I don't know, i haven't seen any of your pictures) can bring great style to a picture but without story, it will be soon forgotten because the audience is left unfulfilled for want of substance. Style can ONLY go so far and then story MUST support it's weight otherwise the experience collapses in on it's self in it becomes the equivalent of a hungry man eating a 5 pound bag of sugar, at first sweet and nourishing then as it's thrust down his throat, sickening and disgusting to the taste.

[James Steven Beverly]

 

 

They certainly aren't forgotten in the experimental film world. Also there are quite a few experimental films that have been preserved by the library of congress. In the experimental world there is often a certain amount of resentment towards narrative movies etc for "stealing" from the work of experimental filmmakers. I think there are a lot of experimental films that are considered great too. There is a whole canon of them in the American Avant Garde.

It's just a completely different scene.

Freya

The experimental film world is a niche market, in fact it's not even a world, I wouldn't even call it a continent. It's more like one of those Eastern European Duchies who's primary exports are brightly colored macrame plant holders and flickering images of gay cowboys eating pudding on mountain tops in the Andes that are sold to university liberal arts students.

 

Do they have to do all 3?

Freya

Not necessarily, but one would be nice.

 

Of these I would say the remembered in 30 years ones would be "Star Wars" and "A Fist Full of Dollars". It might stretch to "Schindlers List". I definitely don't rate the chances of "Dances with Wolves", "Good Will Hunting" and especially "Tropic Thunder". The Kings Speech is definitely not in with a chance as it is a bit archaic already and is also British which alone is marks against it. "Saving Private Ryan"...maybe.

It depends on what you mean by remembered too. I mean if we are saying that the stuff from the experimental film world isn't big enough to be considered to be remembered, then I think we can probably say the same thing about "The third Man" or "12 Angry Men" or many other films that might be considered classics. I think John Holland was recently commenting in a thread about how all the films mentioned were ones from the last 20 years or so.

It gets bit depressing when you look at it but most people are very focused on the latest thing and that seems to be the direction that things are heading in more and more.

Freya

Make your OWN list, the point's the same. The classics have the same combination of styles and story!

 

Heh heh! :)

Freya

Yeah, i thought that was funny too, even if I do say so myself. Edited August 13, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Oh good GOD, YET another "artist". Artist as a self anointed term bestowed on one's ego is less than worth nothing. An artist, a TRUE artist is someone who has been called an artist by someone else, someone they DON'T KNOW, and then only to whoever DEEMS you to be an artist because they see art within the context of the work and ONLY for that particular work. We are FIRST AND FOREMOST craftsmen who DO NOT work ALONE! A director without a writer and a cinematographer and a set designer and a costumer and a hair stylist and an art designer and the composer anf the FX artists and the sound FX artist and a model maker and a producer and the several other hundreds of jobs on a film set that makes the whole damn thing WORK is NOTHING!! The idea of a director as an artist is an illusion. The director is the ringmaster of the circus. His vision is essential to the production but without the supporting elements that surround him, the production would collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane. Would Blade Runner have been as artistic if it were made by another director, HELL YES it!! If Kubrick had directed it, it would have been incredible, different but visually stunning, If Spielberg had gotten he script is would have been mind blowing. If Coppola had been given the chance to direct it, it could have been REALLY interesting and amazing. What YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YET, is style without substance is intellectual masturbation that serves ONLY the "artist's" own ego. STORY is the SUBSTANCE, STYLE is the Flash. Style and story and two completely different things that MUST BR COMBINED to make the movie work. You CAN NOT substitute ONE for the OTHER!! Style CAN NOT BE TURNED INTO STORY and more than a firecracker can be turned into a dirt road!! and story may be MADE stylish but will always retain it's direction and flow. If you want to change one element into another I recommend alchemy or nuclear fusion, you'll have far better luck than with film making. The reason you had to write 3 LONG posts is you're having trouble justifying what you're saying. So far you keep telling me THAT you can translate style into a great movie irregardless of story, but so far you haven't told me HOW you can substitute style for story and that's because YOU CAN'T. You (well maybe not you, I don't know, i haven't seen any of your pictures) can bring great style to a picture but without story, it will be soon forgotten because the audience is left unfulfilled for want of substance. Style can ONLY go so far and then story MUST support it's weight otherwise the experience collapses in on it's self in it becomes the equivalent of a hungry man eating a 5 pound bag of sugar, at first sweet and nourishing then as it's thrust down his throat, sickening and disgusting to the taste.

 

James, your vision is that of a typically American-centric film industry person, to which cinema is only envisioned as a storytelling tool that has to make money to work. I am not dissing you here, just establishing the facts. That doesn't make your vision any less worthy than any other. Being an American-centric movie industry person is respectable in every way, and not easier than being an independent filmmaker (actually, it may even be harder depending on the cases).

 

My vision is that cinema is nothing more than moving images that bring emotions to people who see them. Whoever can make the most emotions come out of the best moving images has made the best film. Story does not have to be involved in that process, at any point, in any way. It is my opinion and you'll have to accept it and deal with the fact that it's in now way inferior to yours.

 

Re: your definition of the word "artist". First of all, I did not refer to myself as an artist, but to other directors. Secondly, cinema is art whether you want it or not. People who make films are therefore artists. They can be good at it or suck at it, but they do make art. "Artist" is not a dirty word.

 

As for the director needing their crew to do the job, that's entirely true on a $200 mil feature. Much less on a $10,000 one. Again, it's all a question of perspective. And even on the $200 mil feature, the director is still supposed to bring "the vision". That makes him an artist. That doesn't mean that their cinematographer or foley artist (notice the word) are not artists. They are also artists in their respective craft. But the director is still supposed to shape the entire film using their talents as a sculptor would use clay. The director is, to me, the most important person on a film set.

 

As for Blade Runner, you did not get my point. You said that if Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorsese or Coppola had directed it from the same script, it would still have been a good film. You only mentioned those giants, who have the ability to bring their great styles to a film. What if Paul W.S. Anderson has directed it from the same script? How good would that script have been then? You have to come to terms with the fact that a good script does not necessarily equal a good film. It only becomes a good film if that script is well adapted onto the screen. The "how" matters much more than the "what".

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Gregg MacPherson]

James Steven Beverly, on 11 Aug 2013 - 8:14 PM, said:

 

Holy shades of John Carpenter.

 

Heh heh! :)

 

Freya

 

I didn't understand that. Is it assumed one has read something by John Carpenter to get this joke? I read half a novel of his once.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Oh good GOD, YET another "artist". Artist as a self anointed term bestowed on one's ego is less than worth nothing. An artist, a TRUE artist is someone who has been called an artist by someone else,

 

Someone is going to stand up at the back of the courtroom and call out..."objection your honor, argumentative!"

 

The idea that an artist is not an artist until someone else tells them so. What kind of odd insecure artist are we talking about? A real artist is that thing, first by virtue of their nature, then second by some evidence of productivity. To add to the confusion, some artists are by nature uncertain and others undergo long periods of no apparent productivity. But as a general principal, artists know innately that they are. The notion that some one else is better qualified to call them that would be laughable, if it wasn't also cruel and potentially damaging.

 

So, JSB, named and shamed on that one. Please don't offer another word about it, at least not near me.

 

The way that Nicholas is using the word artist is different to the way that I am. His usage is legitimate. All the major creative contributors on a film are artist in that sense. But then we need a way to discriminate (discern) between them and this other thing that I might call an artist. To me an artist infuses art more directly into a film.

 

Ridley Scott is an artist. By his nature, potency of vision and shear force of will he infused a massive dose of art directly into Bladerunner. Not to take anything away from the other key creative people, but this wouldn't have been this great thing without him. Remind ourselves that as well as being the primary creative visionary for the film, he collaborated with the writers through a very long, intensive script and concept development. He is naturally gifted at creating environments (set design), has a great understanding of the camera, the lenses, the shot geometry (often operated camera himself). So Ridley Scott was the visionay, the unifying creative power for this film. It's a film made by a great artist.

 

Enki Bilal is an artist. He created, developed, drew his own graphic novels. I don't think he had made a film before, but somehow he was suddenly concepting, developing and making Imortal (may be called Imortal...Ad Vitam or something in other parts of the world). He had good people working for him, but what is on screen is his concept, his formal development, his original designs. Imortal is another film with an extraordinarily potent creative core. The artists vision feels undiluted. Maybe a lot of people didn't see it or didn't get it. But it's a film made by a great artist.

 

Peter Greenaway is an artist. He made Prospero's Books. An overwhelmingly rich infusion of personified idea, character, texture and, seems like it will get lost at the end of a sentence...originality of form. I almost crossed him off my list when I saw The Baby of Macon, and again when I saw The Draughtsman's Contract. But no, the man who made Prospero was a great artist.

 

Joe Wright is an artist. He made Pride and Prejudice, an utterly delghtful sensual exploration of character and circumstance. A formal masterpiece. Endlessly re-watchable. Later, Anna Karenina, a deluge of sensual intensity, original ideas and form. After AK something made me remember Prospero's Books. So Joe Wright is a great artist. I guess if I call them all great the word could become less meaningful. But I don't know how to rank them or diminish them.

 

Running out of steam now.

Chris Marker is an artist. Back in the day the French Embassy loaned a print to our small group of artists/film makers. We were all profoundly moved. I left the meeting chatting to an Eastern European designer who was inventing a one wheeled car that was more in tune with the "loe". Read as laws of nature. Those were the days. Anyway, years later I saw Sans Soliel and felt moved and very respectful of Marker as an artist. A great artist? Measured by his influence? Ask Terry Gilliam (Twelve Monkeys) about that.

 

So one could go on. Perhaps there are a lot of significant artists that worked in film. But I'm sure they are a minority. I'm naming Artists works that were in or on the edge of the mainstream, or were influential to that. Sorry Freya, I don't think of Prospero's Books as an experimental film.

 

PS: The documentative piece(s) on Bladerunner called Dangerous Days that I mentioned before have amazing stuff on the script and concept development. But that may be in the part 1/3 that I couldn't find on Youtube.

 

 

[James Steven Beverly]

As for Blade Runner, you did not get my point. You said that if Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorsese or Coppola had directed it from the same script, it would still have been a good film. You only mentioned those giants, who have the ability to bring their great styles to a film. What if Paul W.S. Anderson has directed it from the same script? How good would that script have been then? You have to come to terms with the fact that a good script does not necessarily equal a good film. It only becomes a good film if that script is well adapted onto the screen. The "how" matters much more than the "what".

ALL good directors will bring style to the project,ANY project they do, it's one of the 2 things that must be intertwined to make the picture great, those were just the ones off the top of my head that were around when Blade Runner was made. Blade Runner ALSO had a GREAT STORY. What part of this are you not getting, you need BOTH and one WILL NOT save the movie NOR is can ONE be substituted for the other.

[James Steven Beverly]

 

Someone is going to stand up at the back of the courtroom and call out..."objection your honor, argumentative!"

 

The idea that an artist is not an artist until someone else tells them so. What kind of odd insecure artist are we talking about? A real artist is that thing, first by virtue of their nature, then second by some evidence of productivity. To add to the confusion, some artists are by nature uncertain and others undergo long periods of no apparent productivity. But as a general principal, artists know innately that they are. The notion that some one else is better qualified to call them that would be laughable, if it wasn't also cruel and potentially damaging.

 

So, JSB, named and shamed on that one. Please don't offer another word about it, at least not near me.

 

The way that Nicholas is using the word artist is different to the way that I am. His usage is legitimate. All the major creative contributors on a film are artist in that sense. But then we need a way to discriminate (discern) between them and this other thing that I might call an artist. To me an artist infuses art more directly into a film.

 

Ridley Scott is an artist. By his nature, potency of vision and shear force of will he infused a massive dose of art directly into Bladerunner. Not to take anything away from the other key creative people, but this wouldn't have been this great thing without him. Remind ourselves that as well as being the primary creative visionary for the film, he collaborated with the writers through a very long, intensive script and concept development. He is naturally gifted at creating environments (set design), has a great understanding of the camera, the lenses, the shot geometry (often operated camera himself). So Ridley Scott was the visionay, the unifying creative power for this film. It's a film made by a great artist.

 

Enki Bilal is an artist. He created, developed, drew his own graphic novels. I don't think he had made a film before, but somehow he was suddenly concepting, developing and making Imortal (may be called Imortal...Ad Vitam or something in other parts of the world). He had good people working for him, but what is on screen is his concept, his formal development, his original designs. Imortal is another film with an extraordinarily potent creative core. The artists vision feels undiluted. Maybe a lot of people didn't see it or didn't get it. But it's a film made by a great artist.

 

Peter Greenaway is an artist. He made Prospero's Books. An overwhelmingly rich infusion of personified idea, character, texture and, seems like it will get lost at the end of a sentence...originality of form. I almost crossed him off my list when I saw The Baby of Macon, and again when I saw The Draughtsman's Contract. But no, the man who made Prospero was a great artist.

 

Joe Wright is an artist. He made Pride and Prejudice, an utterly delghtful sensual exploration of character and circumstance. A formal masterpiece. Endlessly re-watchable. Later, Anna Karenina, a deluge of sensual intensity, original ideas and form. After AK something made me remember Prospero's Books. So Joe Wright is a great artist. I guess if I call them all great the word could become less meaningful. But I don't know how to rank them or diminish them.

 

Running out of steam now.

Chris Marker is an artist. Back in the day the French Embassy loaned a print to our small group of artists/film makers. We were all profoundly moved. I left the meeting chatting to an Eastern European designer who was inventing a one wheeled car that was more in tune with the "loe". Read as laws of nature. Those were the days. Anyway, years later I saw Sans Soliel and felt moved and very respectful of Marker as an artist. A great artist? Measured by his influence? Ask Terry Gilliam (Twelve Monkeys) about that.

 

So one could go on. Perhaps there are a lot of significant artists that worked in film. But I'm sure they are a minority. I'm naming Artists works that were in or on the edge of the mainstream, or were influential to that. Sorry Freya, I don't think of Prospero's Books as an experimental film.

 

PS: The documentative piece(s) on Bladerunner called Dangerous Days that I mentioned before have amazing stuff on the script and concept development. But that may be in the part 1/3 that I couldn't find on Youtube.

 

 

These people are ARTISTS because YOU deem them to be artists. Your reaction to their work is what makes it art. The only "insecure artist" is that one who walks around TELLING everyone what a great "ARTIST" he is. IF you're an artist, people will let you KNOW, you're an but TELLING you that and fawning over your work and telling other people you're an artist.

[James Steven Beverly]

 

I didn't understand that. Is it assumed one has read something by John Carpenter to get this joke? I read half a novel of his once.

John Carpenter in a few interviews spoke about the differences in story telling by talking about a Shaman sitting around a campfire telling a scary story that was either "here" where the campfire was burning or "Out there" in the darkness beyond the light which he summed up as both valid ways of telling a story but he may choose one or the other to tell it.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Enki Bilal is an artist. He created, developed, drew his own graphic novels. I don't think he had made a film before, but somehow he was suddenly concepting, developing and making Imortal (may be called Imortal...Ad Vitam or something in other parts of the world). He had good people working for him, but what is on screen is his concept, his formal development, his original designs. Imortal is another film with an extraordinarily potent creative core. The artists vision feels undiluted. Maybe a lot of people didn't see it or didn't get it. But it's a film made by a great artist.

 

He did, Gregg. Bunker Palace Hôtel and Tycho Moon were his first features. I'm really happy to see his name mentioned here, he is one of my favorite artists.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

ALL good directors will bring style to the project,ANY project they do, it's one of the 2 things that must be intertwined to make the picture great, those were just the ones off the top of my head that were around when Blade Runner was made. Blade Runner ALSO had a GREAT STORY. What part of this are you not getting, you need BOTH and one WILL NOT save the movie NOR is can ONE be substituted for the other.

 

I don't mean to be mischievous or anything, but you said so yourself right here : "Here we have a discussion that asserts style is more essential to creative cinema than the traditional declaration that a great plot makes for a great movie."

 

Now, I think we probably have different definitions of what a "great film" is. Like I said, you seem to define a "great movie" based on how much money it made and how well it's remembered today. I define a "great movie" by its ability to entertain me, affect me in a way or another, and I call the "greatest movies" the movies that altered my views on life. For all these things, you don't need a story. And that's the only point I'm trying to make here.

 

Your constant reminder that a great film needs both story and style, is a flawed proposition. A great film, like all films, only needs several pictures that have been edited together in a meaningful way, and nothing more. Story might be necessary to narrative cinema, it may be necessary to make money at the box office nowadays, but it is not a critical element of filmmaking, which is only about editing pictures (I usually say "moving pictures", but then Gregg's post reminded me of Marker's "La Jetée" which was created using photographs, except for one shot) together. Filmmaking will only ever be about the illusion of moving images, and nothing more, and story is only an element that was added to it in one particular type of filmmaking, which as it stands is narrative filmmaking (which no one here is trying to diminish as a meaningful form of cinema, we're only trying to remind those who may have forgotten it that it is not the ONLY form of cinema).

 

What's the common denominator between all films ever created? It is not story. It is only the fact that they were all made of pictures (visual style). That's what the purest, most basic form of cinema is, and all it will ever be, and it is all that will ever be necessary to make a film. I sure hope you understand this.

 

What makes a film great or not is therefore its ability to affect people through the use of moving images, and that has nothing to do with screenplay, box office numbers, or the opinions of a group of people who establish lists of "greatest movies of all time", as if the fact that some films were remembered and others not would in any way be proof that the latters were dismissed out of a lack of value. Some films were never even released anywhere and are yet "great films".

[Nicolas Courdouan]

These people are ARTISTS because YOU deem them to be artists. Your reaction to their work is what makes it art. The only "insecure artist" is that one who walks around TELLING everyone what a great "ARTIST" he is. IF you're an artist, people will let you KNOW, you're an but TELLING you that and fawning over your work and telling other people you're an artist.

 

Are they not artists just by the token that they engage in an activity that's universally* acknowledged as an "art" form? Of course I guess we could discuss the nature of "art", but the topic would just go on and on.

 

I've never use the word "artist" as a qualitative term. There are bad artists and good artists. But if you paint some pictures, you are de facto being an artist, no matter how much they suck.

 

 

* I know cinema is not "universally acknowledged as an art form", but for the sake of the discussion, let's just pretend obscurantism does not exist...

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[James Steven Beverly]

OK,this discussion is pointless, it's like talking to a brick and I've wasted enough time casting pearls. You go be an 'ARTIST", Good luck with that. I, in my lowly craftsman like way, will just keep making good movies that have been written with great plots and are executed with equally great style.

Edited August 13, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Gregg MacPherson]

OK,this discussion is pointless, it's like talking to a brick and I've wasted enough time casting pearls. You go be an 'ARTIST", Good luck with that. I, in my lowly craftsman like way, will just keep making good movies that have been written with great plots and are executed with equally great style.

 

Lucky for you, unlike for an artist, you are allowed to point out your own great work. Perhaps, if you extend your own idea, the one you imposed on the artists, you should wait for someone else to say those things.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you are done. With the careless, negative idea you offered someone of a similat nature might have droped in and told you to (expletive) off.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Gregg MacPherson

[James Steven Beverly]

 

Lucky for you, unlike for an artist, you are allowed to point out your own great work. Perhaps, if you extend your own idea, the one you imposed on the artists, you should wait for someone else to say those things.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you are done. With the careless, negative idea you offered someone of a similat nature might have droped in and told you to (expletive) off.

The difference is I HAVE been called an artist and a genius on several occasions by several different people,the majority of whom I've never met before nor expect to see again unless they come back to see my work which has happened quite often actually.Also, I don't necessarily call myself an artist except in the abstract. I've made a LIVING as a playwright, filmmaker,cameraman and crew member to name just a few. When I refer to my creating great work, it's not ego, it's my aspiration and obsession. I'm not negative or careless in the least, I'm an experienced realist and unlike you know what the XXXX I'm talking about. Another thing, being an adult, I don't need to use the (expletive) here Gregg, let me tell it to you straight up how I feel about you, You're a pretentious wannabe ass, so to paraphrase Richard Prior, "Have a coke and a smile and shut the XXXX up!" cause you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Wannabe what? Wannabe living in a world more full of art and more allowing of artists. I don't see you as helping with that at the moment. And I don't see you as having any useful contribution here. You haven't shown any commitment of intellect or perceptivity in this thread at all. No sense of inquiry. Oh, but hey, that's because you know it all already, you having been called an artist and a genius an' all. So please start behaving like one, rather than an unimaginative "know it all".

I think Nicholas was extremely patient with you. I'm sure that if you suddenly saw this your vanity (should I write that in upper case?) would be...challenged?...damaged?...perhaps it might be diminished and the world would feel a better place.

It is an utterly bizare, inverted, ass backwards thing for you, you preener, to call me pretentious..

[Nicolas Courdouan]

OK,this discussion is pointless, it's like talking to a brick and I've wasted enough time casting pearls. You go be an 'ARTIST", Good luck with that. I, in my lowly craftsman like way, will just keep making good movies that have been written with great plots and are executed with equally great style.

 

I wasn't going to reply to this, because if you feel you've said everything you had to say, fair enough and let's move on to something else.

 

But then I read the line I bolded in your message, and I'm sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse here, but I have to say something, because I don't want my point to be misinterpreted, and I think you have, right here.

 

With all due respect, James, you are the one being judgmental in this thread. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge the validity of one form of cinema over the other on the basis that it makes less money at the box office, even though that fact has nothing to do with its actual value as an art, but rather with the fact that it is not as high-profile and publicized as plot-centric cinema. So yeah, you're the one drawing lines in the sand and calling one side "the craftsmen", while spitefully referring to the other as "artists" (how dare these people making art refer to themselves as artists?).

 

It's time to come to terms with that simple fact: all of us are artists, because we make movies, or write scripts, or music, etc. and that is not up to the audience. What's up to the audience is whether we are making a good or a bad job out of it. Some of us go mainstream, others don't, but there are no "sides". At the end of the day, a film is a film, no matter how much it costs, or how much it earns, no matter how many people see it or not. And every type of film is just as valid as the next (experimental, narrative, etc.). It's a good thing to be stubborn in this line of work (thanks for calling me a brick by the way, I am one, and so are you. Good for us), but it's not good to be narrow-minded, and with all due respect, I think you are guilty as charged in this regard. Plot-centric cinema is valid, but it's in no way superior to any other just because it is the most well-known.

 

So yes, narrative cinema is great. And so are the countless other forms of cinema who have been around since the creation of the moving image (cinematography never meant anything else than "writing with movement", I am sure you're not learning anything here).

 

And no, you are not a lowly craftsman. You are an artist, just like every other filmmaker (from James Cameron to Brakhage and Tarkovsky) before you. And I never meant to diminish anything you aspired to be with my posts. I did say I was "tired" of the plot-centric approach, but I never said it was less valid or interesting as experimental cinema. Like I already said (several times), I do aspire to make narrative films.

 

No matter how much we argued over this topic and how personal it may have gotten, I'm confident we can put this all behind us without resorting to name-calling, which is highly unnecessary as well as being uncalled for. I am still looking forward to our next conversation. I hope this is also the case for you.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[James Static]

People make films for different reasons. For some it is approached like art, for others it is approached like an academic exercise. I don't think there is any right or wrong way, but it is naïve to assume that all filmmakers are ultimately striving to make box-office-smash-hit movies. Unfortunately the fact that films typically cost a lot of money to make, and can also make a lot of money if done in a certain way, has unfortunately been a very large contributor to the cookie-cutter language of cinema as we have come to know it. Sadly, a whole generation of filmmakers now has a very, very prescriptive set of rules that they unquestioningly seem to cling to.

People have forgotten it's not supposed to be about the money, nor is it about coming as close as possible to making something "objectively" good. It really should only be about the art. Meaning: make your own film in your own way. There are NO rules worth following unless they speak to your soul. Don't make your own film using someone else's prescriptive set of rules. Otherwise, what's the point in YOU making this film? Might as well be anyone with the same or greater technical ability. Have integrity. Trust your instincts, trust your own unique voice. Make a film for the right reasons. Make a film because you have no other way to get those batshit-crazy ideas out of your head and into the open.

Personally I'm repulsed by the idea of pandering to an audience. For me, rule number one is **(obscenity removed)** the audience. The audience is the enemy. If my film has integrity, then when I do eventually find the small handful of people, or perhaps just one person, who likes my film, it will mean so much more. It will mean more to them and more to me. Maybe if I'm lucky I could even build up a following this way. There is a well known quote often used in other contexts but I think it is highly relevant here:

"It is better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not".

Edited August 23, 2013 by James Static

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I would agree with the majority of your post except for the last paragraph. I'm not sure the "screw the audience" mentality is worth it. I think every filmmaker aspires to see their film released and enjoyed by as many people as possible. Otherwise, we'll be making films for ourselves only, and screen them in our living-rooms. If we strive for cinema releases, it is because we do need to put our films out there in the open, and that is because we want to connect to others.

 

That doesn't mean you have to compromise however. Because no one really is unique, and whatever it is that makes you tick, chances are that a whole lot of people also get a kick out of it. Staying true to your guts and your vision is fundamental to any art form. But it is also necessary to admit that almost every artist needs recognition from the masses. I don't think those that say "Screw the audience" actually mean it.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[James Static]

You're right, I don't mean "screw the audience" absolutely literally. When I say that, what I'm really referring to is the fact that the audience don't and won't ever play any part in my decision making during the production of the film. I don't care if the audience doesn't understand my film. I don't make films for that reason. I'm not setting out to be understood by a large audience - on the contrary I'm hoping that I'm saying something sufficiently interesting and unique that by its very nature won't be understood or appreciated en masse. The intention isn't to be deliberately arty or obfuscatory as some people might think. The intention is purely to give my surreal imagination a much-needed outlet.

Having said that, being able to create a film that appeals to the widest possible audience, understanding all the differerent factors that go into that... is a skill that may take great insight and many years of experience. I'm not suggesting it's less impressive - what I am suggesting is it's boring (to me) to have the cinematic equivalent of everyone trying to be Rembrandt, when perhaps if they hadn't been sucked into that way of thinking, they could have been Picasso. Cinema these days is very polarised in that fashion.

But to go back to the title of this thread, I enjoyed "Only God Forgives". I thought it started out more linear, but became progressively less linear and more poetic. I was reminded a bit of David Lynch at times, and Kubrick... and there was the homage to Jodorowsky's Sante Sangre which I enjoyed.

[christina ava]

Well he is Danish, and European cinema has a lot of slow paced movies with minimal dialogue.

I watched recently Only God Forgives, from the onset I was sure the American audience will hate this movie... Our brains are so used to the fast cutting scenes, that it takes strength to sit and be able to watch movies like Tarkovskis "Stalker", or Béla Tarrs "Werckmeister Symphony". We have un-learned to be patient with movies, books, and life itself. I mean who has actually read Dostoyefskys "Crime and punishment" recently?

Its so slow you want to kill yourself in the beggining...after a while it becomes one of the greatest books you will ever read.

 

Concerning the storyline, yes there is a story here, only I was left with a lot of questionmarks.. example what happened to his father..and no one likes loose ends.

Our brains are made to make meaning even out of nothing. And stories from Homers Iliad to Avatar, follow a simple linear recipe. A begining -a middle -a moment of Resolution towards the end and of course an ending.

Movies and books that try to differ from that, rarely keep anyone satisfied. We all want to hear see and feel a good story, Everything else is packaging.

Other than that cinematographers should really watch this movie full of ambient light, and beautifully set up scenes. I can make a poster of almost every scene in that movie.

They overdid it for sure.

 

will watch again. and cant wait for more of his movies....

[James Steven Beverly]

Without European nations and other various countries throughout the world, who would we steal movie ideas from? :rolleyes:

[Sean Cunningham]

I honestly don't understand the controversy here. Only God Forgives has an easy to understand, revenge-based plot. The characters I also found easy to read. Underneath the visuals is a very straight forward, almost conventional story the likes of which you might see in the Western or Samurai genre. Revenge is a universal, human theme that's found in both.

 

Granted, there are some ambiguous motivations here, regarding Gosling's ultimate subversion of his mother's agenda and self-fulfilling prophecy but it's easy enough to come to a likely conclusion, also a universal human theme: Guilt.

 

what happened to his father..and no one likes loose ends.

 

Gosling's character killed his father, either to legitimately protect her or through manipulation. It has a lot to do with why he's in Bangkok. The mother character is a monster that he feels love and loyalty to while at the same time knowing what she is. He carries the guilt of what he's done for her.

 

Too many conflate "story" with "dialog" and/or "character development" with "exposition". Story is not script is not dialog. I believe most critics, and most viewers, simply cannot deal with a normal visual narrative anymore that shows and doesn't tell much less the extra layer of symbolic or abstract imagery related to Gosling's character and his internal conflict. They watch Inception and pat themselves on the back for feeling smart when ultimately the whole thing is explained to them through exposition so transparently meant for the audience that only breaking the fourth wall would have completed the primer experience more completely.

 

Several of the more abstract moments in Only God Forgives would otherwise be classic foreshadowing sequences if they were bookended by coded scenes depicting the sleep cycle. The fluid melding of scenes both actual and internal to Gosling's character is just too much for viewers in need of constant prompting for how to feel or how to interpret what they're seeing. Is it really important to know why the inspector unwinds after a hard day's work of dishing out justice with some pop karaoke at a local gay bar? No. But the film establishes him as a man of ritual and this is part of his ritual.

 

It's all there if you just watch. Watch and process what you're seeing based on the assumption of a decent cultural, social repertoire to pull from. But some just throw up their hands and then can't, or don't, follow the obvious story unfolding in front of them once encountering a challenge to their expectations. It's sad.

 

It didn't help that so many viewers walked into this with only Drive as their introduction to the filmmaker and that being his most commercial, most traditional narrative in form and structure (that I've seen). If they'd seen and appreciated Valhalla Rising and Bronson they might have been more prepared.