Nicolas Courdouan

What I don't believe at all is that "a solid story is present" in this film. The story was flimsy at best. I doubt the script ever exceeded 60 pages. I strongly believe that Refn thought the style would be enough to hold the film together, and this failed because like I said in a previous post, the style did not renew itself throughout the film and failed to keep things fresh. The story was totally irrelevant, unambitious and uninspired. It was your basic revenge plot that you've seen hundreds of time, with nothing new added to the mix. Style was all that mattered to Refn, as he thought it would be enough to turn the most boring plot of the last ten years into a powerful arthouse film. But in this case, it wasn't good enough. It's pretty hard to make a 90-minute long film boring, but NWR might have just achieved that with this film.

The debate never was about how complicated or obscure the film's plot was, but rather whether or not its plot mattered at all to the director. It seems to me this movie was made not with the intention to tell a story, but rather to display stylish visuals without purpose. Create a mood and atmosphere through colours, light, editing, sounds and music, with a nearly complete disregard for the actual plot. Oh and I don't mean that in a bad way. Valhalla Rising is by far my favourite film by Refn.

Apologies if I sound dense or something, but I'm not sure I got it. Do you mean a project where there is one single creative force behind all the aspects of the production (as in: the director is also the writer, the editor, the camera operator, etc.), or do you mean a project where the writer-director is at the centre of the decision-making process and calls all the shots (without necessarily being the camera operator, editor, etc.)? If you mean the former, then absolutely yeah. I totally agree, but I also think that it's for the best. Films benefit greatly from the input of all the different people making them. When the balance is upset (the director wears blinders and wants to do everything, or the producers call all the shots) is when you start having problems. If you mean the latter, I know for a fact that this is not a reality - as far as my limited experience in moderately-budgeted films is concerned.

Well, I guess I have to agree that the more money is involved, the less creative input you're allowed. But I wouldn't say that it's true for all the people who make a living out of filmmaking - I'm not sure that's what you are saying either, but I want to say it just in case. For example, I started out in the editing department. My first internship was on a TV movie two-parters with close to a 3 million euro budget. OK, that's pretty far from an American blockbuster feature. But all the people involved in the project and that I worked with on a daily basis - the director, chief editor and assistant editor - had all the creative liberty they wanted, at least as far as the editing and final cut were concerned. Even better: I got to spend four weeks in the editing room with the chief editor and director discussing the cuts. Most of the time of course I would keep my trap shut and watch how the job was done. But every now and then the director would ask me what I thought of a particular cut or a scene after it had been altered. Me. An unpaid intern with zero credits. I got several other jobs down the line, paid this time, as an assistant editor. The biggest one I got was on a 6-million-euro feature that had a theatrical release. Well, from what I saw and heard, the director had all the space he needed to let his creative freedom express itself. He made the movie he wanted to make. He did have the audience in mind when he was editing the film, but during the five/six months it took to get the project from the first dailies delivery to the final, mixed cut, I only saw the producers four times - and I was there every day in the main editing room - when they would come in and watch the cut then say what they thought. Nothing was ever imposed upon us as editors or upon him as a director. The producers knew he was the guy calling the shots, and any change they were in favour of would have to go through him for approval. Things were discussed and thought through between them, but never forced upon anyone. And again, both the director and the chief editor would regularly come to us - there were three of us assistant editors - and ask for our opinions on particular shots or cuts, and our "recommendations" were followed every time we managed to back them up convincingly. And who were we? Nobodies who were too happy to get experience on a feature like that one. We would have spent the six months in silence working factory-style for half of what they paid us if they had asked. Maybe this is something that you can't find at all in Hollywood, or even the UK industry: I wouldn't know about them. Maybe you were only talking about features that have a 50+ million dollar budget. But my point is that there are people who make a living out of professional filmmaking - the chief editor on that feature I was just talking about has to turn down offers on a regular basis because of his busy schedule - and yet manage to keep the work about having their creative vision end up on the screen, and not just about meeting production imperatives and obsessing over returns on investment. So err... I hope that somehow, that story can cheer you up in some way. But let me repeat that I agree with you if we're talking about major Hollywood productions. A lot of newcomers think that writing a screenplay that gets picked up by some studio will automatically grant them the right to do whatever they want with the picture.

Hmmm... As far as I know, the free version of Lightworks does allow you to edit HD footage using the Avid DNxHD codec. You wouldn't be able to import (or export) AAF files though, but OMF will do the trick... Although if you can afford it, the "Pro" version only costs around $50 a year, and does allow AAF imp/exp + offers many more options for your final export's format... If I had to go with a free software, I'd probably give this one a try. If you're fast, you can also download a free 30-day trial version of the latest Edius software, which is a good alternative.

Another pretty interesting mirror scene:

Sure, the biggest names out there can shoot whatever they want, but I wouldn't say they are "many" though. I'm not sure I'd even venture as far as saying that 5% of the directors working in Hollywood have that kind of power.

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.

And that it will be shot on 35mm. Using Kodak film stock 5219. From the man himself.

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.

Hi, It is the same LCD screen he used on his previous films. It allows him - through the use of wireless emitters/transmitters - to get a real-time signal preview from the camera as his DoP operates it. The actual name of the device is Casio EV-4500 : http://www.gulfsouth-contractors.com/images/EV4500.jpg It is nothing more than a portable TV!

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...

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".

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.

Yes, so we just have to hope for the sake of diversity that people will eventually get fed up with junk food and go healthy. Of course a little McDonald's every now and then doesn't hurt.

I don't know. I have to say I feel the same way but I'm a bit ashamed to admit it. I think the problem is not that people are stupid, but that they are lazy. If you walk down the street and hand them free McDonald's, they're not going to bother looking around for something better to eat. That's the mentality that I blame for the dumbing down of the bigger movies nowadays. I'm pretty sure that if the studios trusted the people with more intelligent films, the audience would follow. But as long as there'll be a McDonald's down the road, people won't venture any farther.

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".

Thank you for posting. Watching Ashes of Time Redux on the big screen tomorrow. Can't wait.

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.

My point being, simply, that great style does not have to come from great story, but that great story can come from great style.

James, the whole point of that thread is "is plot really the backbone of cinematic expression?" and obviously you agree with that statement, but others don't, myself included. In my opinion, great story comes from great style. I'm not diminishing the importance of story, it is tremendously important, but cinema in its purest form is nothing more than several moving images displayed with (or without) sound. Story does not have to be there to "make a movie". Those images and sounds do not have to come from the story, because story is naturally created via the association of pictures and sounds. You are right when you say that the most successful films at the BO are narrative films. You are right when you say that the best films combine great story and great style. I'll never say anything against those two statements, I think they are very true. I only suggest there's a lot more to film than story, that it is not the backbone of cinematic expression, and that story does not have to come first. See, that's exactly the kind of statement some people here are rising against. I mean, this is like saying a good script can only be turned into a good film. This is like saying there's a secret recipe for a good film: all you have to do is find a good script. This is like saying Ridley Scott didn't make Blade Runner great, it was already great on accounts of being written by Fancher and Peoples. This is like saying it would have been just as great had it been directed by whoever else from the same script. In that case, let us stop celebrating directors and film crews all around the world. The only guys responsible for making or breaking great films are the screenwriters, the rest is no more than fanciful backwash.

Edit: The message above was posted by mistake... Here's the real deal: Well, most of my actual professional experience only concerns post-production but if you're interested in my take on this, here it is. Don't be a dick for the sake of being one. Make people happy whenever you can. Chances are that no matter how much you give away or withhold, the people who really are interested about it will find a way to emulate it, by reverse-engineering your technique or discovering a new way to do it. So I don't think it's a big deal to say it. Now, if you're afraid that for some reason revealing the magic trick would spoil the experience, you can always draw that line and come clean about it "Sorry pal, I'd rather not tell it because (...)" instead of beating around the bush and looking like someone just asked you to sell one of your kids. Just my two cents.

Well, um... most of my experience actually only concerns post-production, but if you're interested in my take anyway, here's what I think: Don't be a dick for the sake of being one. If somebody asks you how you achieved such and such, and you feel that it's no big deal to reveal it, then do it a

Hey George, I agree 100% with your first sentence. The moderately budgeted films you refer to now suffer from a lack of exposure due to the ever increasing presence of blockbusters on our screens. However they are available if you know where to look (I agree that this can be a problem though, because a lot of people don't bother to look). I think that when you rely on the past (nostalgia), you always end up narrowing the horizon instead of broadening it, and there's a risk that the industry will fester and rot because of that. However I do disagree that we have to feel depressed about it, because in my opinion the only cinema that is at risk is specifically the blockbuster industry. I am confident that the worst that can happen is a return to a more "moderately-budgeted cinema". Auteur and independent cinemas will survive, because the only audience they need is the audience they already have. It is certainly a "niche", I guess, but so far it's enough, and it has proven to be able to constantly renew itself throughout the years. For example, we have the Irish Film Institute in Dublin, which is a cinema that screens independent films only. It's a smaller cinema, with smaller films, and yet it survives on its own (despite never having to screen the occasional blockbuster nor sell film food on the side to keep afloat). My point being that these films always find a way to reach their audience, without compromise, without fail. And the big difference between those and the blockbusters is that the independent films lovers are not becoming tired of the movies they watch. Like all businessmen, the guys in Hollywood rely on demand. When people finally get fed up of this constant stream (more like a tidal wave actually) of big nothing movies, something will happen. All we have to do is trust that people will indeed get fed up, and to quote Fox Mulder, I want to believe. I think Hollywood are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel with their constant remakes and FX extravaganzas. And when you're at the bottom of something, the only way out is up. So let's keep our heads up and cheer. Hey James, I saw that video by the way. Thanks for posting it. I guess what I meant is not that they "knew" in a ubiquitous, all-knowing kind of way, but that they were pretty confident in their choice, and reasonably so, since the numbers justified it. However I also think that, like all fads, it's a temporary thing, and Hollywood will have to stay on their toes and open to whatever comes next if they want to keep their audience.

Spot on in your analysis of the market being aimed at adults who don't want to see their childhood go... Although the numbers you quoted refer to 3D films only, and 3D is aimed at a younger audience only, because Hollywood wants to capture their imagination before their parents' 60" flat screen does.