Dropping a Hypocritical Bomb

[Satsuki Murashige]

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

 

Their arguments on the set of 'The Godfather' are well-documented. Mostly about Willis wanting to stick to their planned approach of proscenium framing and carefully considered blocking, while Coppola wanted to create freeform, grab a handheld camera, and improvise scenes. There's the famous anecdote about the high angle orange shot in the Don's assassination attempt scene, one of the few battles that Willis lost but turned out great.

 

Looking at the resulting film now, the movie would have been completely different had Willis not stuck to his guns and argued vociferously for his position throughout the production. Not many cinematographers have ever had the balls to do so in quite the same fashion as Willis. Of course, Willis and Coppola went on to make two more 'Godfather' films together, and many think that 'The Godfather, Part II' is one of the most stunning studio art films ever made. A large part of that is the tension between two great artists and their opposing ideas about cinema.

 

If you look at Coppola's more jazzy free-form work with Storaro on 'Apocalypse Now' you can really see the difference when two artists with operatic tendencies combine forces.

[Michael LaVoie]

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?

You actually answered your own question. Most set techs have seen enough cautionary tales early on in their careers. Awful films they worked on that you yourself have already mentioned. We already know not to plow ahead with an unworkshopped awful script that hasn't been given professional coverage. We know not to direct a film that has no decent actors and no real producers attached. We know that without a pre-sale contract it's unlikely our film will ever see the light of day and probably never get into a real film festival. Despite the handful of exceptions to the rule, my hunch is this is why most set techs don't bother picking up the megaphone.

 

Anyone can make a movie. Well, the sort of film you mentioned. But to go through traditional channels and standard development on a real film is NOT open to everyone. There are many walls and protocol preventing you from "bothering" established working professional talent and their agents.

 

So getting a legit, connected producer to take you on and help you get financing, secure talent and a distribution deal is necessary in most cases. I won't even go into how difficult that is even for a veteran director with awards under their belt. Never mind a first time filmmaker. A career as a set tech doesn't help you in the world of development. It just doesn't translate.

[Stuart Brereton]

I love it when new people join the forum, and with their very first post, decide to insult every other member.

 

Royce has seen fit to inform us that we're all either cowards or hacks, and that we are wasting our lives unless we've directed a film.

 

He's chosen to do this while freely admitting that he's never made a film himself, so he's not only a coward, but a hypocrite as well.

 

Way to go, Royce. I would say welcome to the forum, but I don't suppose you'll be around that long.

[Landon D. Parks]

Royce scream of 'troll' to me - and I really don't normally call people trolls unless they really appear as such. A new member joins, makes no introduction and immediately posts something that is meant to incite people into a argument. Not a question, not a helpful comment... To me, sounds like the textbook definition of 'troll'. Sorry if I'm wrong, Royce, but I really doubt that I am.

 

I might incite an argument every now and then, but at least I usually have a valid reason to do so.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Field]

The creative vision and business savvy required to become a millionaire writer/director filmmaker is one in a million. Going to random internet forums expecting someone who's accomplished that is a little silly. I personally go to this forum because there are many geniuses of their craft on a technical and creative level both posting and reading here. I don't have the money for film school so going through pages of debates (and engaging in my own) is a fulfilling way of gathering knowledge from unique sources all across the world.

 

Let's say you want to be that rock star director, even if your vision and style is completely mapped out, technical know-how is something you can't assume most of the time. That's why you would talk to people that have been on sets or experienced a workload you have not.

If you're mostly talentless in film right now and think talking to Tarantino will 180 that, well... good luck.

 

A talent in itself is knowing which small questions to ask that will lead to your overall goal of filmmaking knowledge.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[David Mullen ASC]

In this new age of social media, it is considered a virtue to be inconsiderate.

[David Mullen ASC]

You know, I don't need to "prove" my passion for filmmaking, to anyone...

[Mark Kenfield]

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.

 

 

I'm not sure what sort of sets you've worked on Royce, but if you think that good films come solely from the will and minds of genius directors... then I think you've been drinking a little too much of the Nouvelle Vague/Auteur Theory koolaid.

 

Film is an inherently and inextricably collaborative medium. At a bare minimum you need at least a person behind a camera and a person in front of it.

A director's job is much like a conductor's. Their job is to guide the creative output of the entire orchestra to form a cohesive whole. But every single choice a director will ever make, is going to be filtered through eyes, perspective and abilities of the technicians and performers that have to carry those choices out.

 

And if your broader existential conundrum really is "why do people have opinions on things they haven't done themselves?", well all I can say is - get used to it! Because you won't escape that reality in any corner of this rock we call Earth. And you can thank Descartes for that.

[Guest]

Let me know if you need me guys :D

R,

[Justin Hayward]

It's funny, my whole life I've wanted to be a director, but lately I've been envious of cinematographers if only because they get to work on so many more projects than I do. But more than that, they get to dig into a very specific aspect of filmmaking and put a 100% of their energy toward that one thing. They're more like painters. Whereas directors have to worry about every freaking thing, including managing a large number of very different personalities which can be quite distracting. I often feel like a director is more of a craftsman and leader of people and a cinematographer is a real artist.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Casablanca" is a good movie... Who was the "one man" with the vision on that one?

 

Everyone on a movie set other than the director is a technician and not an artist? There are no artists among cinematographers, production designers, costume designers, composers, editors, screenwriters?

[Justin Hayward]

"Casablanca" is a good movie... Who was the "one man" with the vision on that one?

 

Everyone on a movie set other than the director is a technician and not an artist? There are no artists among cinematographers, production designers, costume designers, composers, editors, screenwriters?

I'm often amazed how a sound designer can really hurt a movie in some cases, but can also elevate a movie to another level in others. There are so many creative outlets for people working in film production. Filmmaking includes every art form there is; image, performance, music, writing...

[Royce Herbst]

As people are getting angry and argue how everyone is important what not. It makes feel I might be hitting some soft spot.

 

I specifically mentioned that I'm not undermining the work DP or sound guy put into.

 

But I'm confused with how they can go by with their lives as a sound guy for 20 years. let alone some are still involved in movies that are terrible. I googled some of you guys here and the filmography.... Not gonna comment much further.

[Royce Herbst]

I'm just wondering when you see Paul Thomas Anderson came out with boogie nights and magnolia, at the age of 27 after working as a PA and being a NYU drop out. Do you have no reaction about it?

 

But I'm not even trying to say you gotta direct a film or make millions or be famous. But to really do something either tell a story, make a movie or like Chris McCandless explore his inner self and go out and "live".

 

The very notion of pulling the dolly cart, holding the boon pole or play around some stupid commercial for 10 years to make ends meet and the some routin family vacations really baffles me.

[Justin Hayward]

Well, I directed a small feature when I was 28 and everybody hated it, so I guess there's an argument to be made that some people involved in film production shouldn't try to direct feature films at all. Unfortunately for me, there's a huge difference between making a movie and making a good movie.

 

And I know sound designers that get to sit in their house and come up with all sorts of crazy stuff and get paid well for it. It's a pretty awesome job.

[Max Field]

 

The very notion of pulling the dolly cart, holding the boon pole or play around some stupid commercial for 10 years to make ends meet and the some routin family vacations really baffles me.

What is baffling about having a job? Are you 10?

[Stuart Brereton]

. It makes feel I might be hitting some soft spot.

 

 

 

 

 

The very notion of pulling the dolly cart, holding the boon pole or play around some stupid commercial for 10 years to make ends meet and the some routin family vacations really baffles me.

 

If you've hit a soft spot, Royce, it's because people here are rightly proud of what they've achieved in the film industry, and don't take kindly to someone who attempts to criticize that, particularly when that criticism comes from someone who by their own admission has achieved nothing.

 

Also, the suggestion that working hard, and being good at a job for no reason other than to provide for oneself and one's family is somehow worthy of contempt is extremely offensive. Maybe you're some privileged trust fund kid who can sit around on his ass all day, but the rest of us need to work for a living.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just wonder about someone who likes poking people's soft spot. Even if you honestly felt that the people on this forum had pathetic credits to their names, then why would you point that out to them? It reminds me of the "disagreeable man" song by Gilbert & Sullivan in "Princess Ida":

 

If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am:

I'm a genuine philanthropist — all other kinds are sham.

Each little fault of temper and each social defect

In my erring fellow-creatures, I endeavour to correct.

To all their little weaknesses I open people's eyes;

And little plans to snub the self-sufficient I devise;

I love my fellow creatures — I do all the good I can —

Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!

And I can't think why!

To compliments inflated I've a withering reply;

And vanity I always do my best to mortify;

A charitable action I can skillfully dissect;

And interested motives I'm delighted to detect;

I know ev'rybody's income and what ev'rybody earns;

And I carefully compare it with the income-tax returns;

But to benefit humanity however much I plan,

Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!

And I can't think why!

[Stuart Brereton]

 

I . Even if you honestly felt that the people on this forum had pathetic credits to their names, then why would you point that out to them?

 

Perhaps criticizing others makes him feel better about his own inadequacies. He freely admits he's achieved nothing.

[Justin Hayward]

I criticize certain things about people too, and I don't always do it to their face, so I'm judging the poster of this thread as well as myself. So that's a good thing, I think.

[David Mullen ASC]

When you are young and alone, you tend to focus on the "great men" of history and art for inspiration, it's entirely understandable.

 

But when you start to work and join the communities that form around a particular field of study or artistic endeavor, you find so many people sharing similar dreams but having different approaches, different skills, some successful both artistically and career-wise, some just one or the other, some neither and struggling, some on the way up and some on the way down, some beginning and some retiring -- it's that wide range of human experiences that make the community interesting and alive, it reflects the struggles of people in general, in any field of endeavor.

 

We can't have a world where everyone is number one in their field, where everyone is a leader and there are no followers, and certainly if everyone was the genius that Paul Thomas Anderson is, then no one would consider Paul Thomas Anderson a genius, he'd just be average by definition!

[Brian Drysdale]

Film making is a team sport, like Formula One racing, in which the driver goes no where without the people behind them. If you look at the crew list of Festen, you find another screenwriter, a future Oscar winning cinematographer, a future BAFTA winning Best Editor, it wasn't a director out alone with their DV camera.

 

Film crew members can't afford the above mentioned soft spots, it's too tough a business to get where they are, to stay where they are and to know the answer to the director's question before they know to ask it.

 

It's up to Royce to go out and do it himself, otherwise it's just all pub talk.

[Satsuki Murashige]

The very notion of pulling the dolly cart, holding the boon pole or play around some stupid commercial for 10 years to make ends meet and the some routin family vacations really baffles me.

Well, what do YOU do for a living? You must have a job to pay rent, buy food, pay bills. Do you consider that job worthless? I personally love what I do and am proud that I can support myself with it. I really don't need any other validation to continue down this path. What about you?

[Satsuki Murashige]

Royce, I also would like to hear your response to this:

 

----------------

 

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?

 

--------------

 

I've given you concrete examples of what most general audience members would consider authorship by a cinematographer of a film by a great director. How does that jibe with your analysis of the auteur theory?

[Royce Herbst]

Is there any way to delete this post?

I think I got my answers.