Nicolas Winding Refn and the supremacy of style over story

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Also maybe of interest to you is the definition of Cinema:

 

The art or business of making films.

 

Although I think they are wrong to use "or" here. It should be "and".

[James Steven Beverly]

Which makes me want to add this:

 

I believe that aside from the primal "did I like this film or not?" everybody asks themselves while/after watching a film, the only truly important aspect that makes or breaks a film is its director's intention(s).

 

OK... Maybe this is another step taken towards the deconstruction process.

 

There are numerous intentions a director can have when signing on a project. Their primary ambition might be to entertain. Make the audiences laugh, cry, or take them on an emotional roller coaster, from one extreme to the next. Maybe they want to scare them to death. Or their intentions might be to talk about the horrors of war, or praise war as a necessary evil. Talk about the life of a person they admire. The list is endless.

 

The point being that plot is only an instrument that serves these ambitions. It is not the primal element giving birth to the film, it is just another of its ingredients.

 

No matter how great the plot is, no matter how great the cinematography, etc. are, if the director's ambitions are irrelevant, abject, missing the point or missing their mark, the movie will be a failure. This will make or break the film.

 

If you're trying to entertain and your audience is bored, you've failed.

If you tried to make them laugh, and they walk out stern-faced, you've failed.

If you're trying to display the beauty of the natural world, and end up praising urban architecture, you've failed.

 

This is truly what makes or breaks a film. If the audience understands the point of your film, and if they see an earnest desire from you to give them something, they will praise it as a successful enterprise, regardless of whether there is a plot or not.

 

If they don't understand it, or if your point is lost on them, the movie fails.

 

This is not what I am saying though. All I'm saying is that the work you put out has to be meaningful to you. If it's meaningful to you, chances are it will be to somebody else, but you can only hope that it will.

 

We can then delve into what constitutes art or not.

 

Here's what the Oxford dictionary think art is:

 

 

How does cinema not apply?

 

Nick

You know, I MIGHT agree with some of those statements except for the fact that The iconic film The Wizard of Oz had FIVE directors,The equally great film Gone with the Wind's vision was mainly formed by David O. Selznick not the 3 directors that worked on it at various times and the admittedly great style of Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate couldn't save the film when it crashed and burned like the Hindenburg, effectively ending his career. To quote Argo:

 

Tony Mendez: Can you teach somebody to be a director in a day?

John Chambers: You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a director in a day.

 

AGAIN, stop taking yourself so XXXXing seriously.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Tony Mendez: Can you teach somebody to be a director in a day?

John Chambers: You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a MINOR HOLLYWOOD director in a day.

 

Now that sentence actually makes sense.

 

I'm going to try it your way to see if my point gets across more easily...

 

Maybe YOU should just take a step BACK and look at what happens OUTSIDE of mainstream Hollywood to realize the fact that absolutely everywhere ELSE (even in the LA independent scene), the director is the ONE MAJOR CREATIVE FORCE driving a film project, from its writing to its final cut... First of all, mainstream Hollywood is about the only place (OK, it's not a "place") on Earth where DIRECTOR is not automatically synonymous with SCREENWRITER. That's right, everywhere else in the world, directors WRITE their OWN films. If they can't write because they're no good with words, they get somebody else to lay it on paper FOR THEM, but all the story, all the ideas and the whole structure come from them in the first place. Anything that ends up in the film was DESIGNED and CONCEIVED by its director. The crew sure helps a lot towards that goal, BUT have ALL (cinematographer, editor, sound designer...) been selected by the director specifically because they felt they were the right guys (and girls) to put THEIR vision on the screen.

 

And this is why at award ceremonies, the director is the person walking up the steps to get the trophy, NOT the screenwriter. If a film depended on its screenplay only to be good, or if "great screenplay" automatically equaled "great film", then NO ONE would CARE who the directors are or do on a film set. Screenwriters would be the only persons of interest. How many people in your entourage that have no professional relation to the film business can name TEN screenwriters? How many of them can name ten directors? There, you have it.

 

OK, enough with the caps.

 

You bet I'm taking myself seriously. You're apparently a "writer-director", so you should know that as well as I do. Every director who writes their own films must feel like they have something that's important enough and holds enough value that they have to share it with the rest of the world, no matter how many others have already told the same story before... How can you not take yourself seriously? Why would you write a story that you feel will have no impact on anyone? Or is that not "taking oneself seriously" according to you? What business do you have being a director if you really think a monkey could do your job (by the way, I think that joke actually comes from Tropic Thunder, and Argo just reused it)?

 

Maybe we should just call it quits and admit that we've each been formatted by different forms of cinema. In my world, films are made by directors, because there are no scripts waiting around to be picked by the first guy who shows interest in the project. Directors imagine and write their own films, select the people who will work on and off the set, and call every single shot + always have final cut. It's all part of the deal. And the producer is there to find a way to get the money. So it doesn't get any better than this. If the director isn't there, no one else will make the film happen.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[James Steven Beverly]

I had a whole thing written here, but XXXX it. Let me put it this way. "If the director isn't there, no one else will make the film happen." Gone With the Wind had 3 XXXXing directors. SELZNICK MADE IT HAPPEN. The Wizard of Oz had 5 XXXXing directors, NONE OF WHICH HAD ANYTHING IN COMMON WHEN IT CAME TO STYLE!! There is no "apparently", ace. I've directed a XXXXload of 5hit or should I say, I've written, directed and produced a XXXXload of 5hit so let me ask you one question my 24 year old colleague, what are some titles you've helmed? They can be theatrical,commercial, industrial, music video, educational or narrative (short or feature). I have done all but narrative feature although that will chance this coming year. Personally, I have a simple philosophy for production, hire good people and let them do their job. Guide but don't micromanage and have the utmost respect for their contribution to the project. There's an old Hollywood adage: There are 2 entry level jobs on a film set, Production Assistant and Director. My self-deprecation is a nod to the vital contribution of those whom I work with have made. My people would walk into Hell for me and I will have their backs all the way to the wall. They believe in me because I am a professional and act like one on set. I've done almost every job there is to do on set with the exception of continuity. They trust me because I trust them and they know I know what I'm doing and what I want but also that I have enough humility to take suggestions from anyone on the set if it makes the movie batter. I have no ego for myself. The film is the only thing I'm concerned with. If the PA has a good idea, a better idea than I had envisioned, HIS idea is implemented and mine is cut. I don't take myself seriously because there is no need for me to act like an arrogant, pompous, self glorified ass in order to stay in charge,keep the production moving and get what I need to cut the film together and get it sold. As for "Tropic Thunder" being the inspiration for the Rhesus monkey line, I've seen the film like 7 times. I don't remember a line about a Rhesus monkey but feel free to enlighten me. BTW, the screenwriter has far more to do with style than the director. I refer you to Lethal Weapon and screenwriter Shane Black and the book that has changed he film industry for better or worse, Save the Cat by former screenwriter, Blake Snyder (now deceased) . But you are right about one thing, this discussion in pointless. You need more experience before you'll understand what I'm talking about and I grow weary of debating the obvious. Good luck with your style centric approach to film making.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

See the way you -again- mentioned Hollywood films as examples of films where directors didn't really matter?

 

I also stopped reading after the third line. 24-year-old? Does my profile say so? I'm actually 16.

 

Just kidding.

 

I directed, shot and edited three music videos, which you will easily find using my name on Google or something.

I wrote half a dozen short films, two features, two graphic novels.

I'm also primarily an editor and trained as a videographer. I've shot/edited short films and video captures of several theater plays + a documentary about Spanish cinema (with a major focus on Carlos Saura) and a good half dozen promotional films for various companies and was an assistant-editor on commercials,TV-movies and one major feature (major in my country of origin anyway, which is France).

 

But hey, I'm glad you did all the "5hit" that you did. Good for you.

 

Yet again, you misunderstand my whole point. Of course the crew is here to have a creative input, no director - except for douches - would remain oblivious to their comments and suggestions. My point was only that outside of Hollywood, films get made only because a director wrote them, and certainly not because a screenwriter had an idea for a film he couldn't be bothered to direct himself and sold his script to a studio who then hired a director to do it in his stead.

 

Good luck with countering that one. It's just the way it happens.

 

Needless to say, I absolutely agree with everything you said about directors needing their crew and being ready to walk into Hell with them blah blah blah.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Let me also say that I am absolutely conscious about the fact that my résumé here is not impressive and that I have so very much to learn. I did not unravel the whole list to show off (which would be pointless, since it's not much) but only because you asked.

 

I wish this whole thread didn't have to come down to a pissing contest.

[James Steven Beverly]

Oh,you're French, that explains a lot No, I think you misunderstood my point. Everyone who works on the picture contributes their own portion of style to the final product so underestimating their individual contribution to the over all style in favor of some ego centric director as god myth is absurd. Your system sucks for getting the best product. Some people can do it all but they rarely do it all well. Some are brilliant writers that couldn't direct traffic and some directors could screw up writing with an empty pen.

 

I've directed other peoples work and my own. I like doing my own work but am not adverse to directing someone else's script i it's a story I want to make.

 

The last editing job I did was an abandoned spec television series with a fair amount of footage that the director had tried to cut into a feature. He couldn't do anything with it. I asked if I could look at the footage. He agreed and I watched it then told him I thought I could do something with it. He agreed to pay me for the cut and I spent some time using every trick in the book to make the footage work. It took a while but after a few weeks I had the cut and then finished post, leaving him with a watchable 94 minute feature film. That film got him enough interest for investors to fund the sequel which he made. I was unavailable to work on the sequel but from what I later heard, it bombed and he quit making films. Anyway, this is starting to bore me and I have better things to do so bye.