James Static

You're right, I don't mean "screw the audience" absolutely literally. When I say that, what I'm really referring to is the fact that the audience don't and won't ever play any part in my decision making during the production of the film. I don't care if the audience doesn't understand my film. I don't make films for that reason. I'm not setting out to be understood by a large audience - on the contrary I'm hoping that I'm saying something sufficiently interesting and unique that by its very nature won't be understood or appreciated en masse. The intention isn't to be deliberately arty or obfuscatory as some people might think. The intention is purely to give my surreal imagination a much-needed outlet. Having said that, being able to create a film that appeals to the widest possible audience, understanding all the differerent factors that go into that... is a skill that may take great insight and many years of experience. I'm not suggesting it's less impressive - what I am suggesting is it's boring (to me) to have the cinematic equivalent of everyone trying to be Rembrandt, when perhaps if they hadn't been sucked into that way of thinking, they could have been Picasso. Cinema these days is very polarised in that fashion. But to go back to the title of this thread, I enjoyed "Only God Forgives". I thought it started out more linear, but became progressively less linear and more poetic. I was reminded a bit of David Lynch at times, and Kubrick... and there was the homage to Jodorowsky's Sante Sangre which I enjoyed.

People make films for different reasons. For some it is approached like art, for others it is approached like an academic exercise. I don't think there is any right or wrong way, but it is naïve to assume that all filmmakers are ultimately striving to make box-office-smash-hit movies. Unfortunately the fact that films typically cost a lot of money to make, and can also make a lot of money if done in a certain way, has unfortunately been a very large contributor to the cookie-cutter language of cinema as we have come to know it. Sadly, a whole generation of filmmakers now has a very, very prescriptive set of rules that they unquestioningly seem to cling to. People have forgotten it's not supposed to be about the money, nor is it about coming as close as possible to making something "objectively" good. It really should only be about the art. Meaning: make your own film in your own way. There are NO rules worth following unless they speak to your soul. Don't make your own film using someone else's prescriptive set of rules. Otherwise, what's the point in YOU making this film? Might as well be anyone with the same or greater technical ability. Have integrity. Trust your instincts, trust your own unique voice. Make a film for the right reasons. Make a film because you have no other way to get those batshit-crazy ideas out of your head and into the open. Personally I'm repulsed by the idea of pandering to an audience. For me, rule number one is **(obscenity removed)** the audience. The audience is the enemy. If my film has integrity, then when I do eventually find the small handful of people, or perhaps just one person, who likes my film, it will mean so much more. It will mean more to them and more to me. Maybe if I'm lucky I could even build up a following this way. There is a well known quote often used in other contexts but I think it is highly relevant here: "It is better to be hated for what you are, than loved for what you are not".