Nicolas Courdouan

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

Hello Brian, and thanks for your reply. Yes, I am familiar with Film Base and the IFB and since my original message I've made some progress on this front. I am now in the process of writing two shorts, one of them I will direct, before I can get back to trying and getting this feature made. Thanks again for the tips.

Actually, they are the exact same numbers. The IMDB ones were just a rolling total, which means that they added the BO numbers of each week to the total gross accumulated by the film up to this date, something I had to take into account for my calculations. Box Office Mojo has the same numbers in the "Gross-to-date" column on the right. Sorry for the digression.

I'm not familiar with the US distribution system, but a quick Google search taught me that an American theater claims between 20 - 25% of a film's gross on the 1st week, 45 - 55% on weeks 2 and 3, and 80% and above from week 4 onwards. Now, assuming these numbers are correct and assuming they were relevant at the time, Blade Runner only made a little under $13,500,000 during its initial run (I did the maths using the numbers you gave). Of course, I only did this out of curiosity, and... for fun basically (I get really bored at work). They're not meant to prove anything, but I'm sure they give us a bit of insight as to how much the studio actually made back during the initial run, and yeah it's pretty far from the estimated $28,000,000 budget (assuming this figure is also correct). Anyway, now I understand why opening weekends are such a big deal for the studios and why nowadays films usually disappear after 3 or 4 weeks. No point in the studios renting theaters any longer when they practically make no money out of their movies after the third week... Edit: They are the rolling total.

But its budget was estimated to be around $ 28,000,000 (not sure that's even including the marketing), and from that total gross, you have to subtract the part that goes to the movie theaters that screened it.

You misunderstand me. When I say "I don't care about the paperwork", I simply mean that doing paperwork is a chore to me. I don't mean that I'm determined to avoid doing it. I think I made it pretty clear in my message that I am willing to do this thing by the book. Which means I will be worrying about the paperwork, amongst other things...

I am really looking forward to it all. In all objectivity, Star Wars and Disney have always felt like they belonged together. Ever since I was a kid I have associated the two because of Star Tours, Star Wars Weekends, etc. Now that doesn't mean Disney can't screw it up, but I'll reserve judgment until I see what they do with it. And I'm happy that Lucas chose to let other filmmakers have a go at the universe he's created. That was a very good move on his part.

I really liked it too, and the cinematography played a large part in this. I am disappointed though that the movie felt like a Bondinized remake of The Dark Knight. Too much in its story, characterization and even music was inspired by Nolan's flick. Not too big a disappointment I must say, since the movie was enjoyable, had great action scenes and performances, and was good on the whole. I just would have liked less similarities with TDK. The villain Silva shares at least a dozen common traits with either the Joker or Two-Face, in terms of appearance (dyed hair, half-disfigured), demeanour (flamboyant and over-the-top), motivations (he is the hero's perfect arch nemesis, he wants revenge against the person he blames for his disfigurement), modus operandi (always planning his enemies' every moves, no matter how unrealitic and over-the-top they are, dressing up as a cop to carry out an attack, getting arrested on purpose...). The score as M descends into the Bond's mansion "cave" sounded like something straight out of Nolan's Batman trilogy. And you could dig even deeper and find other, less straightforward similarities, like the hero being an orphan and accessing the family's manor which has a secret underground passage, the action sequence in an Asian megapole skyscraper, etc. It also basically is the movie where the thuggish but skilled assassin ("blunt instrument") from Casino Royale becomes the refined spy we've always known, just like TDK had Bruce Wayne disappearing completely behind the Batman character to become a heroic, selfless figure instead of the mere masked vigilante he was in Batman Begins. After watching it, I looked up "Skyfall inspired by The Dark Knight" on Google and found several quotes by Sam Mendes saying that the Dark Knight was a direct inspiration for Skyfall in terms of being an over-the-top blockbuster that also tells something very real and serious about the world we live in. He forgot to say that the screenwriter had probably watched the Dark Knight a hundred times before penning the Skyfall storyline and characters. I am confident that they had a meeting and said "let's make this the Dark Knight of this new James Bond". But yeah, I want to stress I liked it anyway. I just wish it would have been more original.

It's from an interview you can find here : http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2010/05/26/exposure-ridley-scott/ I can remember a couple of zooms in Alien. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but some shots really feel like they were zoomed in. Now I need to watch it again.

My mistake. Here's his exact quote, that I misinterpreted : "I always feel that when a film opens up and it’s wide, it’s kind of nice. I don’t do anamorphic. Alien was anamorphic and it was a nightmare for focus. It was the relatively early days of the anamorphic zoom lens. My focus puller in those days was Adrian Biddle (BSC). He recalibrated the lenses one weekend because for some bizarre reason they were forward-focusing. We couldn’t work out why; it would look sharp through the camera. Today, we tend to use Super 35 spherical, which is faster and easier to keep sharp."

I don't know if what you're looking for exists, I certainly have never seen it but would be very interested in finding something like this, so please keep us posted if you ever find it. From what I know about his methods : I seem to remember that he favors longer focal lengths in general. Sorry for not being able to provide you with a precise quote or website, but if I remember exactly what I read he said that he likes to use lenses from 75mm and beyond. He shoots with multiple camera setups, sometimes as much as 8 cameras for a two-character dialogue scene. There's also an interview of him floating around where he mentions using spherical zoom lenses most of the time. He only used anamorphic on Alien and didn't like it because of how it turned focus pulling into a nightmare (at the time). Good luck!

I both agree and disagree. It sounds like you're saying technical knowledge spoils the experience of watching films. I think it just gives you a new perspective, a new way to enjoy them. But you still enjoy them, at the end of the day. Five years ago I would watch a film, see a beautiful shot and think "Woaaaa". Now I think "Woaaaaa... How'd they do that? What can I learn from it?" Is this in any way less enjoyable than merely taking it in without thinking about the technical side of it? I don't think so. However, I do agree that the more I know, the more I watch films with the intention of studying them rather than simply enjoying them, the farther away I get from the story. I find myself enjoying films I would have hated years ago, films with dreadful stories, but with such perfect cinematography, editing, sound, etc. that I actually find myself loving them. And I kinda dread this, because I fear it could turn me into an all-style, no-substance filmmaker. On the latest projects I've worked on, I sometimes had to give myself a good kick up the backside, realizing that I was all about finding the perfect composition for a shot, rather than wondering what kind of shot would serve the story best. So it can be a double-edged sword. If you can find the right balance between technique and an entertaining story, it's a win-win situation. You just have to remember that it's never all about the technique.

I'll give it a try, although I'm not sure how long and thorough these replies will be. Re: The New Wave cinematography - It's impossible to determine a "New Wave method", at least as far as cinematography is concerned. That is because The New Wave is not defined by a set of specific rules and guidelines, but rather by the absence of them. The New Wave was more groundbreaking in how it approached producing, than cinematography or sound. It's about breaking all the rules, that were considered boring and outdated. So basically, if you go out and shoot some guy walking on a street with very little equipment, use actual by-standers as extras, and don't really care about who's going to stare straight into your lens and what's going to happen, break all the rules in the book, you're doing New Wave cinematography. Some common traits can be identified, but more about the subject (young people craving freedom, in contemporary, urban areas) then the technique (although hand-held shots were very common in New Wave films, I think that it was just another consequence of wanting to shoot with little to no equipment). The choice in cameras, lenses, etc. was entirely up to every single filmmaker and depended on what was available at the time. Godard's films don't look like Chabrol's films. There was no method. Only the will to be freed from all rules and distance themselves from the past. Re: Criticism / cinematography and beautiful films. I'm not really sure what you were getting at with this question, because I think it's obvious that there is no rule here. Film critics are supposed to be film lovers (for their sake, I hope they are). I guess watching thousands of films gave them a larger perspective on what exactly were the medium's limitations at the time, and examples of how they could perhaps break through those limitations. Re: Any hope of a new New Wave : Clearly, no. The ambition of the New Wave was to deconstruct filmmaking to its bare essence. It's been done. And we've reached a point in filmmaking history where the medium's possibilities are so advanced, so endless, that the chances of seeing a group of filmmakers coming up with a radically different approach to anything that's ever been done before are close to none. I would say the American Mumblecore is as close as we'll ever get to a second New Wave, and it's not nearly as new or thought-provoking as the New Wave was. Re: What can today's filmmakers do to push the medium's boundaries - That's a tough question, because of what I just mentioned. With the arrival of digital technologies and our thorough knowledge of the medium, we are close to ultimate freedom. How do you go beyond that? It's safe to say that everything that could be done with the medium has been done. To move past it, the medium itself has to evolve. But is it really important to push the boundaries? I have a big gripe with the New Wave mentalities, especially Godard's. They sometimes sounded an awful lot like what is commonly referred to as "hipsters" today. And they made certain things for the sake of making them differently, rather than making them interesting. And look at Godard's films today. He too has become a slave to his own principles. The real question could be : Do you really feel limited as an artist by today's techniques? Do you really feel that the medium is pulling you back in any way? Re: What about the New Wave should every filmmaker know? - In short, the auteur mentality. The value of the filmmaker's vision. That's what the New Wave really brought to the table. Before that, it was felt that cinema had reached its potential, and more and more films were becoming a cool way to shoot theatre plays. Filmmakers were getting entangled in their rules and codes. What the New Wave taught us - I think - is that we should not be slaves to the medium. You don't have to shoot a certain scene in a certain way just because it's what is considered appropriate. Value your identity as an original filmmaker. The story, cameras, lenses, equipment that you are using are not what matters at the end of the day. Only your vision, what you want to accomplish as an artist through your film matters. How you do that is entirely up to you, and there are no rules or limitations you should comply to.

Hello all, I hope to find some sound advice on how to produce an independent feature. I come from editing (done some TV work and one feature as an AE) and have been directing music videos for a little over a year. I am now working on my first feature with a co-writer. Like many other directors, I basically don't care for all the paperwork. I want to bring my story and vision to the screen, and not be bothered by the how or the when. But being a complete unknown, I know my chances are very slim (let's be honest, zero) to get my story into the hands of an able producer who will want to get it produced. I am now considering self-producing this feature as an indie, low-budget flick, and I hope that this thread can be used as a resource for all filmmakers out there who are facing the same situation. So here it goes : - Where do you start? I guess you'd budget the project first, right? But once it is done, how exactly do you round up your cast and crew if you're not sure yet how much you're going to be able to pay them? Do you just tell them to wait and see? - What doors should you knock on to get fundings? TV channels come to mind of course, but then again, will they open their doors to a nobody? Unlikely. And if they did, what do you show them? Production notes? The script? - How difficult is the legal part of the production process? I only have beginner's notions of all the image rights issues, but other than that, I am a total "noob" and at a loss to know what issues to address with my cast and crew, and people lending equipment, locations, etc. What should I be wary of? What are the big no-nos and the must-dos in that regard? I know I'm basically asking for a Production 101 here, but what I'm really interested in is the very basics of what to do, and especially what NOT to do, what not to forget when doing prep work on a feature. For the record, I am trying to get this feature made and produced in Ireland. And yes, I know that "Irish Film industry" is almost a science fiction term, but I figure my chances are as low there as anywhere else anyway, so why not try it? Even if this film has to be shot without a budget to speak of, and end up as a YouTube movie, I WILL make it happen. Many thanks in advance for taking the time to answer.

Add to the bolded ones Blade Runner (my number 1, no contest), Children of Men, The Machinist, No Country for Old Men, and Old Boy, and you get my top 10. "Pi" is close to the 10th one, I'm a sucker for grainy-as-hell, low-budget films.

I'll be damned if Lubezki doesn't get this...

Not "all" Canon DSLRs but they did use them on some shots (pick-ups mostly). Not sure about the percentage though. They had Philip Bloom fly over to the Skywalker Ranch and later to the set to do some test shots that apparently ended up in the cut. Here's a behind-the-scenes video that shows it all :