Dropping a Hypocritical Bomb

[Royce Herbst]

This may be offensive but I'm just posting here for some insights of my untold inner psych.

 

 

I'm baffled with the number of mid aged (over 40s) people in the industry, who go on and talk about and talk about and talk about this concept called "film making", and yet they themselves have never wrote and/or direct one themselves. For those who did actually made a feature or two, the quality of a lot of which is beyond terrible. This also applies to many, certainly not all college professors even from those reputable institutions.

 

 

My conundrum is to understand the aspect from their point of view:

 

Every a few years come out a determined 25 year old, who makes a great piece of film. I wonder it happens doesn't the the "older" generation feel some kinda of regret or shame, that they are taking order from people of their kids' age? Or do they accept their "fate" by that point, that they just don't have the "talent".

 

Although it's always been said, it's a collaboration to make a film and "Old folks'" decades of experiences on set at times it's extremely helpful for young first time filmmakers. . But I think we all know, a good movie is always a one man's vision. Everyone else one set only serves as a technician.

 

 

Making movies is a young man's game, says Tarantino. Do they are silently agree?

 

Some people here may agree and some may tell me otherwise, if so, let me learn something, what did I missed?

 

[Brian Drysdale]

It's a two way street, both age groups bring things to the table. It's tough to get a film made regardless of age, but the person with the vision relies on their collaborators, who add the details and options that the good director grabs with both hands. Bear in mind there is also a scrptwriter who puts a large amount into it.

[Stuart Brereton]

 

 

But I think we all know, a good movie is always a one man's vision. Everyone else one set only serves as a technician.

 

 

 

Don't feed the troll.

[Royce Herbst]

Bear in mind there is also a scrptwriter who puts a large amount into it.

 

I believe in writer/ directer should be the same person.

[Brian Drysdale]

Sorry, you don't live in a real world, directors and writers don't always have the same skill sets. Also, directors wiil often have a long wait between projects if they write every film they make.

[Royce Herbst]

Sorry, you don't live in a real world, directors and writers don't always have the same skill sets. Also, directors wiil often have a long wait between projects if they write every film they make.

I said I "believe in".... meaning I believe that is how it should be.

[Michael LaVoie]

 

But I think we all know, a good movie is always a one man's vision. Everyone else one set only serves as a technician.

 

You do realize this is a forum populated largely by professional set techs. You'd be better off posting a rant like this over at stage32.com I'm sure you'll get lots of action over there.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Michael LaVoie

[Royce Herbst]

Also, directors wiil often have a long wait between projects if they write every film they make.

Have you heard of rainer werner fassbinder? Besides, a long wait between films so what?

If the goal is to make as many as they can, then I couldnt disagree more.

[Royce Herbst]

You do realize this is a forum populated largely by professional set techs?

Exactly, I'm trying to understand what keep them going....

Don't they have a story matter to them or something they had to say..... being 40 years on the planet earth.

Then why, haven't done anything about it?

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, I have heard of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, who was very productive and also had talented collaborators like Michael Ballhaus. However, you needed the infrastructure around in order to support that level of work flow at that time. However, it's a different world now,

 

3 to 5 years is more usual for a feature film to get funded and into production (many take longer). Of course, you can make your own no/micro budget films faster and no one is stopping anyone and perhaps today Fassbinder would be making these. The director need to produce work in order to develop their talent, so waiting for their own script may not be an option.

[Brian Drysdale]

Exactly, I'm trying to understand what keep them going....

Don't they have a story matter to them or something they had to say..... being 40 years on the planet earth.

Then why, haven't done anything about it?

 

A number of them do make their own films, or have talents that lie outside story telling, but which the story teller needs. Directors often doesn't have the many talents needed to make a film,

[David Mullen ASC]

Somewhat ill-mannered thread - it sort of boils down to: "For those of you who haven't made a movie yet, why are you failures? And for those of you who have, why do your movies suck?"

[Royce Herbst]

Somewhat ill-mannered thread - it sort of boils down to: "For those of you who haven't made a movie yet, why are you failures? And for those of you who have, why do your movies suck?"

Yeah... kinda... because everybody says they are "passionate" about "film".

And I don't see it. The over cliched story they move down to LA or wherever 10 years ago.

And then I saw some thing they made.... I was like your are 40, 50 years old... what were you doing with your life really.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Royce Herbst

[Brian Drysdale]

Sorry, but they don't have to prove passion by writing on a forum, they do it by what they're doing in the real world.

 

In the end, it seems that being "hypocritical" lies with the questioner, unless he has a body of work that says otherwise.

[Royce Herbst]

Sorry, but they don't have to prove passion by writing on a forum, they do it by what they're doing in the real world. .

what they're doing in the real world means.... they didn't make anything worth mentioning for 20 years? But I get your point, just dodging my questions...

 

 

 

In the end, it seems that being "hypocritical" lies with the questioner, unless he has a body of work that says otherwise.

that is actually my original intention of the word, because yes I haven't made anything yet. but doesn't stop me to pop the question.

[John E Clark]

Have you heard of rainer werner fassbinder? Besides, a long wait between films so what?

If the goal is to make as many as they can, then I couldnt disagree more.

 

Fassbinder also died at a young age due to drug use... that probably propelled some of that productivity.

 

In other cases, because of the subject matter of some films and/or audience response, some directors either never make another film or only make one rarely. But that's not because they didn't want to, just never got the budget again after the failure.

 

Michael Powell lived another 30 or so years after "Peeping Tom"(1960), but only made 5 afterward, and only one that would match up to his previous theatrical films, "Age of Consent"(1969).

 

It is said that Hitchcock saw the response to Powell's film, and that was the reason he severely limited 'media' access to prescreenings of "Psycho"(1960).

[Royce Herbst]

 

Fassbinder also died at a young age due to drug use... that probably propelled some of that productivity.

 

In other cases, because of the subject matter of some films and/or audience response, some directors either never make another film or only make one rarely. But that's not because they didn't want to, just never got the budget again after the failure.

 

Michael Powell lived another 30 or so years after "Peeping Tom"(1960), but only made 5 afterward, and only one that would match up to his previous theatrical films, "Age of Consent"(1969).

 

It is said that Hitchcock saw the response to Powell's film, and that was the reason he severely limited 'media' access to prescreenings of "Psycho"(1960).

how many films they made during what time period really isn't any of my question.

But the key point is that they all made something important to themselves and they refined they skills over time and the movies are good.

[Satsuki Murashige]

A. Not everyone wants to be a writer or a director. People figure out what they're good at and generally specialize in that field. You can have a rich fulfilling career as a technician and many of them get paid very well, have mortgages, send their kids to college, etc. They can still love cinema, just like anyone else.

 

B. Making movies is hard work and making a good movie is extremely difficult, even for filmmakers with decades of experience. Even just raising money to make a feature is a full time job that can take years. Not everyone wants to live that lifestyle.

 

C. If you've been anywhere near a professional set, then you will realize that the idea of 'one man, one film' is just an ideal. So many talented artists and technicians contribute to the making of a film that without their labor you would have nothing. All of the great directors take the best work from their crew and direct them toward a single vision. They act as a filter for creative choices and ideas. Not as the sole wellspring of them.

[Brian Drysdale]

The key point is that film directors, just like theatre directors need the skills of others, they are interdependent. To separate them represents a fundamental lack of understanding of the processes involved.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Brian Drysdale

[Landon D. Parks]

You're essentially asking us why we suck so bad, and why we are such failures even when we do succeed. As David said above, this is a pretty off-putting post. At the very least it should be in the General or Off-Topic sections. At the very most it should not have been started.

 

Royce: Perhaps it'd be better if you spent some time reading differing posts here to get an idea about what this forum is about. Not trying to sensor your thoughts, but I doubt you'll find too many who will bite with a question like that.

[Landon D. Parks]

The key point is that film directors, just like theatre directors need the skills of others, they are interdependent. To separate them represents a fundamental lack of understanding of the processes involved.

 

As someone who comes from a theatre directing background, I cannot say enough how true this is.

[Royce Herbst]

thanks for the genuine response and taking the time to write it.

 

I know making a film needs expertise from all others, as I acknowledge that in my original post.

But I'm saying that I think they are disposable for lack of a better word. This DP can't work for me, I'll find another. So are directors who direct other people's scripts. But the unique story line up with the cinematic style that makes a great movie like Paul Thomas Anderson, and so many others can't be replaced.

B. Making movies is hard work and making a good movie is extremely difficult. Not everyone wants to live that lifestyle.

 

Sure thing, I didn't say it's easy, but I'm calling everyone those who hasn't a coward.

I believe by the point of mid twenties, everyone has something of their own to tell, that is more important than living.

it doesn't have to be movies, book, song, whatever. You gotta do somehting with your life than just hang out with families and go to the coffees.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Royce Herbst

[Brian Drysdale]

So, have you done these things, or are you a hypocrite?

[Satsuki Murashige]

I know making a film needs expertise from all others, as I acknowledge that in my original post.

But I'm saying that I think they are disposable for lack of a better word. This DP can't work for me, I'll find another. So are directors who direct other people's scripts. But the unique story line up with the cinematic style that makes a great movie like Paul Thomas Anderson, and so many others can't be replaced.

 

Let's take another example then. What about Francis Ford Coppola? Obviously a great director with a hugely influential filmography. He has worked with some of the all-time great cinematographers: Gordon Willis on 'The Godfather' films; Vittorio Storaro on 'Apocalypse Now' and 'One From the Heart'; Jordan Cronenweth on 'Peggy Sue Got Married'; Billy Butler and Haskell Wexler on 'The Conversation'; Stephen Burum on 'Rumble Fish'; Michael Balhaus on 'Dracula.'

 

Every single one of those films had a huge contribution from the DP, not to mention the other departments. Their work is distinctly individual and personal, unmistakable for another. What if in an alternate universe Storaro had shot 'Godfather', Willis shot 'Apocalypse Now', Burum shot 'The Conversation' and Wexler had shot 'Dracula'? Can you imagine how different those films would be?

 

Coppola cast each cinematographer to the film, just as he cast his actors. And that is because each one brings something unique to the table. It is the same for all the crafts.

 

 

Sure thing, I didn't say it's easy, but I'm calling everyone those who hasn't a coward.

I believe by the point of mid twenties, everyone has something of their own to tell, that is more important than living.

 

You clearly haven't met enough twentysomething people then. You think most of them want to tell their stories instead of living their lives and having new experiences? Guess again.

 

Believe it or not, storytelling is a high art. Especially in film, perhaps the most complex of all the art forms. One needs to learn many crafts to even become competent, and that takes time.

 

As for cowardice? Haha. It's only so if someone wants to make a film and doesn't out of fear. Most DPs and technicians don't want to write and direct for a living - that is why they do what they do. But it sounds like you do. So who's the coward?

[Royce Herbst]

Don't know if you know that Gordon Willis and Coppola had terrible relationship while shooting Godfather, why? I'll let you find out.

At the end of the day if it's Coppola's power to give him a go head on what dark shadow fantasy' Gordon Willis have.

Coppola also wrote the screenplay though. But my point is a debatable one depends on your take. Obvious story is what matters, whether the image is beautiful or not is up to your own opinion.

 

I have show stills from Festen(1998) and Breaking the waves, to "professional DPs" they all hate it and call it crap. But those are real good movies. John Bailey admitted it themselves in a Podcast of American Cinematography, that their work really is less important to a director with a very clear vision and idea before shooting.

 

 

 

You think most of them want to tell their stories instead of living their lives and having new experiences? Guess again.

No I think, young people or everyone should have enough experience by that time and have something to say about it. The other way around. People shouldn't go to film for the sake of it, but experience life first and only use film as a medium if they have somehting important(to them) to say, otherwise what;s the point... but that's another off topic.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Royce Herbst