Jump to content

To become DAVID FINCHER or STANLEY KUBRICK?


Recommended Posts

Yeah, well...the Greenaway films that actually have worked (though I admit they are limited) truly are works of art and make anything spielberg or lucas has ever even imagined of making look like sitcoms, soap operas and bad sci-fi movies...beyond that, you can't really take any of the credibility away from Greenaway's comments, as he's probably the most knowledgeable film scholar alive today. You can say what you want, but you're not referring to one of my own comments, you're referring to one made by Peter Greenaway, who I'm sure could handle your petty comments.

 

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter HOW mis-guided it might be. Speilberg's films have more heart than most people can ever hope to approach which is why they are so insanely popular. How many people can quote lines from E.T. and how many can even remember one from 8 1/2 women or Prospero's Books? Lucas' films create such universal themes and emontions that they are being emulated by thousands of ametuer filmmakers at great personal expense 30 years after the films were made, far and away the largest group of fanfilm enthusists in existance today, with several more fanfilms made than all others put together. How many The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover fanfilms are there? Scorsese is a film scholar, Bogdonovich is a film scholor, Tarantino is a film scholar, any good filmmaker is a film scholar, I consider myself one or at least in the process of becoming one. Just because you know a lot about film doesn't mean you have some God given insight as to what art is or should be. Some of the dumdest people I know are professors. Many became professors because they couldn't cut it working in the fields they teach, so they become bitter, disillusioned, spiteful little tin Neapolians that are more interested in being the center of attention and lording their pathetic power over some 18 year old than really exporing a subject which they don't have the skills to do in the first place. Now if ol' Petey want's to join our little band of gypses here and post on his comments, I'll be happy to cross swords with him at any time as well. It may be much less of a one sided dual than you might have concidered, OH and my comments are not petty, YOU just don't like anyone to cast dispersion on your heros....Which really AIN'T my problem, Ya sees, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em and when they's wrong, they's wrong, whether they happen to be your hero or not. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter HOW mis-guided it might be.

The same can be said for you Captain. With you it's always Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood. I'm reading a book on filmstyle at the moment and Eisenstein, Renoir, Lang have all been mentioned several times already, while there is still no trace of Spielberg or Lucas. There is more to art than popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same can be said for you Captain. With you it's always Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood. I'm reading a book on filmstyle at the moment and Eisenstein, Renoir, Lang have all been mentioned several times already, while there is still no trace of Spielberg or Lucas. There is more to art than popularity.

 

OK....So? The guy who wrote your book is a fan of Eisenstein, Renoir and Lang, big deal so am I. Just because he wrote a book doesn't make it the definitive work on filmstyle. Eisenstein, Renoir, Lang have ALL been dead for a long time. Their story is written. Speilberg and Lucas are still very much alive with a lot of history still to be made. It's no great feat to say Eisenstein, Renoir, Lang had style, but it does not negate Lucas and Speilberg as serious artists. True there is more to art than popularity, but popularity doesn't disqualify a film or filmmaker from being art or artist. There is a kind of prejudice that only charature driven, intensely personal films should be considered art when in fact situation driven pieces with wide general appeal have as much if not more value as art than any other types of films. Van Gogh's The Starry night is one of the most recognizable and popular paintings on earth. Does it's popularity exclude it from being taken seriously as a piece of art? Is it any less artistic than the Mona Lisa? Is Rembraunt more of an artist than Van Gogh? While popularity alone does not make something a work of art, popularity coupled with a profound impact on social concousness does. What more can be expected of art than that? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's ever a good idea to discount "popular success". I think that goes along with some of the initial ideas of screenwriting that I always ask myself. "Would ANYONE want to watch this?" I think there are points that all filmmakers have something to add to film history (especially Steven Spielberg... I mean cripes). But the reason so many scholars look at people like Renoir, Lang, and Eisenstein, (though there are many who could be added to this list... like Keaton) is because they helped to invent the wheel. It's much easier to talk about filmmaking and the art of story telling through filmmaking if you start with the people that went through so much trouble to figure it out the first time. Once you figure one thing out, you move on to the next. Filmmaking is a relatively new art form, but it has advanced extraordinarily fast. These filmmakers from the turn of the century answered questions that need to be taught to the beginning filmmaker (and revisited by the pros again and again). Sure, you can look at what Spielberg/Coppola/Scorcesse does and be able to put together ideas about film. But, if you start at the beginning, you can get simple (well, not THAT simple) answers and some very basic instruction on visual story telling.

 

And I'm just not sure if I'll include Lucas on this list of current "artists"... I think I'm just too bitter these days. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's ever a good idea to discount "popular success". I think that goes along with some of the initial ideas of screenwriting that I always ask myself. "Would ANYONE want to watch this?" I think there are points that all filmmakers have something to add to film history (especially Steven Spielberg... I mean cripes). But the reason so many scholars look at people like Renoir, Lang, and Eisenstein, (though there are many who could be added to this list... like Keaton) is because they helped to invent the wheel. It's much easier to talk about filmmaking and the art of story telling through filmmaking if you start with the people that went through so much trouble to figure it out the first time. Once you figure one thing out, you move on to the next. Filmmaking is a relatively new art form, but it has advanced extraordinarily fast. These filmmakers from the turn of the century answered questions that need to be taught to the beginning filmmaker (and revisited by the pros again and again). Sure, you can look at what Spielberg/Coppola/Scorcesse does and be able to put together ideas about film. But, if you start at the beginning, you can get simple (well, not THAT simple) answers and some very basic instruction on visual story telling.

 

And I'm just not sure if I'll include Lucas on this list of current "artists"... I think I'm just too bitter these days. :D

Well, if you're talking CGI, motion controled cameras, computer animation intgrated into film and digital cinema (which I believe will prove to be a milestone in future film history) he DID invent the wheel. Give the devil his due, my friend B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just because he wrote a book doesn't make it the definitive work on filmstyle.

I never said that. I offered this example as a counterpoint to all those Predator fans out there who think that their opinion is as valid as anyones. Which coincidentally is a similar argument I had with my 10 year old niece who keeps on insisting that Britney Spears is the best musician in the world. Ever!

 

There is a kind of prejudice that only charature driven, intensely personal films should be considered art...

I'd venture to say that the greatest pieces of cinematic art are not character driven, but director driven. Directors like Antonioni, Angelopoulos, Tarkovsky and so on made films that do not expect the audience to sympathize with the characters/actors, but work on a different, deeper level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the Kubrick/Fincher question - these two directors are different sides of the same coin. Especially when considered against feature filmmaking as a whole and all the many different feature directors.

 

Also, while it is amusing to make fun of the Rattners and the Bays and compare them to the Fellinis and Renoirs, I would argue that feature filmmaking is, by and large, a commercial artform. Predominantly, films are made to be seen by a large enough audience such that the filmmakers can make money. Many films are made that work outside the bounds of this typical feature film bailiwick but if we're seriouly analyzing the situation it's impossible to deny that the vast majority of movies are commercial ventures.

 

The storytellers involved are no different from Shakespeare who was unavoidably concerned about his own box office or Michaelangelo who worked more often than not on commissions. I bring this up because great work can be done in a commercial field and it is likely a mistake to dismiss the work of Bay, Rattner, and others of their ilk out of hand. Their work pleases the masses, it is well-crafted (from a technical standpoint), and usually gives us a view to the spectacular.

 

Finally, these two directors are always named as if they should be looked down on by the more serious artists among us. Which is strange to me for several reasons. Firstly, I highly doubt these two men agonize over their films and are upset at by the movies they end up making. Rattner and Bay probably love their work, enjoy the material, and relish the opportunity to, in their own ways, push the envelopes within their types of films. Secondly, they are commercial artists with talent, ability, and skill. Thirdly, they have the ear of their industry. Fourthly, they are household names. Lastly, they can turn out a commercial artpiece that will bring in massive audiences excited to see their latest work.

 

It's strange that any of this justifies the vilification that these directors receive - while many a more serious-minded director makes talking head movies that lose money, are seen by few, and are comparably simple to execute (again from a purely technical standpoint).

 

At the end of the day art is about communication. The ultimate desire of the true artist is almost always to impart to others some sense of the world as they saw, experienced, or imagined it. Bay and Rattner's messages may be far less dense than the messages of others but their messages are heard and that right there is something which should never be underestimated - the artist with the power to be heard.

 

Evan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter HOW mis-guided it might be. Speilberg's films have more heart than most people can ever hope to approach which is why they are so insanely popular. How many people can quote lines from E.T. and how many can even remember one from 8 1/2 women or Prospero's Books? Lucas' films create such universal themes and emontions that they are being emulated by thousands of ametuer filmmakers at great personal expense 30 years after the films were made, far and away the largest group of fanfilm enthusists in existance today, with several more fanfilms made than all others put together. How many The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover fanfilms are there? Scorsese is a film scholar, Bogdonovich is a film scholor, Tarantino is a film scholar, any good filmmaker is a film scholar, I consider myself one or at least in the process of becoming one. Just because you know a lot about film doesn't mean you have some God given insight as to what art is or should be. Some of the dumdest people I know are professors. Many became professors because they couldn't cut it working in the fields they teach, so they become bitter, disillusioned, spiteful little tin Neapolians that are more interested in being the center of attention and lording their pathetic power over some 18 year old than really exporing a subject which they don't have the skills to do in the first place. Now if ol' Petey want's to join our little band of gypses here and post on his comments, I'll be happy to cross swords with him at any time as well. It may be much less of a one sided dual than you might have concidered, OH and my comments are not petty, YOU just don't like anyone to cast dispersion on your heros....Which really AIN'T my problem, Ya sees, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em and when they's wrong, they's wrong, whether they happen to be your hero or not. B)

 

You're equating a film's quality to the number of fan sites and geek-boy followings it has. I've never said that I have any "greater insight" into what's "art" and what's not, those are simply reactionary conclusions you've made. You seriously jump over everything everyone says, challenging them even if they're in complete agreement with you. I simply, nudgingly said, "The tyranny of the actor," as a sort of joke and you wrote 10 ten-paragraph posts trying to couter...what?...something.

 

You have this strange sort of reproach for people who prefer different films than the ones you've deemed "great" (all of which have become regurgitations of past films, in my opinion)....a strange hostility toward people who prefer more personal films over cold, throwaway epics. If that's their preference...what then?

 

There are most certainly big-budget films that I deeply enjoy have among my top-100 favorites (favorite being a key word to all of us, mind you). Usually, I, unlike yourself, try not to consciously make a distinction AT ALL. A film is a film, when I'm arguing about a film that I believe to be great, I am HARDLY taking into consideration its budget or fricken mass appeal to account for its greatness. That is something you've entered into the discussion and is no reflection on my views whatsowever. I'm no elitist, friend, but I also most certainly am not the little, velveeta cheese boy who won't try his vegetables...and when he does, despises them on the basis of preconclusion. I suggest you stop with the accusations that simply because I enjoyed watching Ratcatcher and the draughtsman's contract far more than I did watching ET drink beer and shine a fake little light-bulb into drew barrymore's face, that I'm some cold, elitist snob. No one here has accused you of being a dopy, popcorn-munching studio lover, because we've had enough respect to be polite and consider your knowledge of other films...return the favor for once. No one has even come close to insinuating that studio films cannot be art and shouldn't be taken into consideration be movie goers....that was a statement you put into our mouths in an argument you've manufactured throughout films and isn't even part of the discussion, so drop please just drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And btw....please stop insinuating that because I'm young I'm some impressionable sponge. I know what films I enjoy watching and what books I enjoy reading. I can absolutely assure you that I've seen more of them and read more of them than you have in order gain that ability, and perhaps that's why I get so bored with what I see....it's very rare for me to go to a film or read a book now and just be wowed... It's not to say that they aren't quality works...it's just that I've gotten bored and can recognize so many of the origins and influences in them that it detracts from the actual experience. Perhaps it's sad, but it makes hte films that really do blow me away that much more to savor.

 

Your grossly pompous comments about Peter Greenaway (who is actually not one of my heroes, as I believe many of his films were masturbatory, egocentric pieces that alienated the audience and were far too pretentious and self-contained to help evolve the medium as was always his goal.....just as I believe many of his theories are based ont he assumption that areas of revolution are welcome among filmgoers when really they are not....however I do admire him for what work he has succeeded at and do agree with many of his views and can relate with much of his boredom in the regurgitated mess that consumes a lot of cineplexes today) sound pretty silly and I can assure you that it would be a 1 sided slaughter as soon as you start comparing Lucas to fellini, eisenstain, welles, hitchcock, goadard and lang.

 

You act as if someone else has formed my opinions, but not your own. Perhaps you should remember (if ever you've heard it) what Oscar Wilde said about Emerson saying that so many men are other men and our thoughts are merely quotations. Or what Krishnamurti said about second-hand people. You're jsut as manipulated as anyone else in the world, so don't give comments about greenaway imposing his views on teenagers, when most of the men you worship and yourself are all products of other men's thoughts and ideas. At least I'm trying not to be second-hand...at least I'm not complacent like you seem to be, and am hungry to see things I have not seen before. You can't fault me for that.

Edited by Robert Lachenay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same can be said for you Captain. With you it's always Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood. I'm reading a book on filmstyle at the moment and Eisenstein, Renoir, Lang have all been mentioned several times already, while there is still no trace of Spielberg or Lucas. There is more to art than popularity.

 

I take a lot of issue with this statement and not just because you're positing "a book on film style" as somehow inherently superior to whatever other reference point people are using to judge a given director.

 

I agree that Lucas is more important in terms of industry than style, and certainly Renior and Eisenstein (and I would add, above all else, Tolland to this list; his work with Welles and Wyler is mind blowing even today) have been more influential than Spielberg, but I think this is only because their innovations happened so long ago that the entire medium has absorbed them. Spielberg isn't the most influential director ever, but he's probably the most influential of the past 20 years. Also, the fact that you omitted Wyler and Welles from your list hints to me that you have an anti-corporate bias, of which I'm somewhat wary. Genius and commercial success are never mutally exclusive.

 

I also feel that while Eisenstein may have been brilliant and a great formalist, many of his theories were horribly flawed. I've read some Eisenstein (beyond the few essays everyone reads) and not only is his prose incoherent and his structure digressive, a lot his ideas about parsing the image are fundamentally flawed, and many key sequences in his films are based on these theories. Sure, he did some great stuff, and certainly his experimentation has been key to film's evolution, but his most successful ideas were not his alone; they were shared by the other montagists as well and evolved accordingly.

 

I think the reason people take issue with Spielberg is because the quality of his films is somewhat ineffable and impossible to quantify. He's both formal and intuitive and both artsy and commercial and while these are his great strengths, they are also the reasons he's so hard to pin down.

 

Kubrick is pretty formally consistent, but I consider him to be the most "literary" of the great filmmakers. His choice of formal devices is based on the novel: metaphor (both visual and otherwise), symbolism, motifs, what have you. Relatively intelligent people who don't want to engage with the messiness inherent to film form love Kubrick because he's formally rigorous, but within an all-too-literary basis. He's easy to love, and it's easy to understand why you should love him. Heck, he even wrote almost all his films and they're almost all literary adaptations. He has some pretty fantastic and innovative cinematography, too, but I feel he engages with film as a unique medium less than, say, Spielberg, but still more than the average director.

 

Michael Bay I feel is a competent director who can tell a story pretty well. He's also a phenomenally hard worker and a brilliant photographer, so his films are usually only decent, but gorgeously photographed nonetheless. There's an arbitrariness and predictability to his choices (fast cutting, high contrast, super rich colors) that almost makes their efficacy offensive, but his choices still work and are surprisingly hard to replicate. Con Air looks way worse than The Rock and is far less visceral. And when he's not shooting action, his films still look like Michael Bay and the "Suspiria Effect" comes in: yes, it's a stupid story, but it only seems THAT stupid because the photography is so beautiful. Bay is an average director who works hard and has a truly brilliant eye for abstract beauty; if he can transcend the limits of his prior films he has a lot of promise, but I think his work is purely intuitive and not constructed around a rigorous formal basis, so he will never be a true great. I'll still watch every movie he puts out.

 

Spielberg, I think, mediates the line between Bay and Eisenstein. His love of spectacle recalls James Cameron, but I think Cameron uses film form on a very elementary basis. I enjoy his films for their "gee whiz" factor-what's onscreen and not how it's rendered. On the flip side, this is why Cameron is so technologically innovative; his films are more craft than art. All the same, he is an unusually good storyteller, if a poor formalist, and his willingness to enage with new methods of filmmaking forces some formal rigor into his style, because he has to cope with formal devices as-of-yet undiscovered by other filmmakers. (Avatar is going to be 3D and half CGI; its use of these effects will be elementary, sure, but it will also be new and therefore innovative.) But I digress. Spielberg uses form on a very intuitive basis; he engages so completely with film style (one has to assume Kaminski plays some role, too) that you can't really pick out how he's using it. War of the Worlds' use of long takes and aperture framing is just flat-out brilliant, but if I were to systematically try to figure out WHY this works so well and how Spielberg patterns these devices, I couldn't. A lot of formalists (Eisenstein, etc.) have a theory that they try to put to work and the stumbling blocks are that they don't realize said theory perfectly, and usually the theory is flawed. Intuitive directors try to communicate thought directly through the medium, but they fail to delve deep into its possibilities. Spielberg understands film on such a basic and profound level that he engages with it intuitively on a formal level. His films have incredibly formal rigor but not necessarily formal consistency; because he is a true cinematic genius his films are complex, flawed, self-contradictory, and ineffable. He also can't end a movie for his life; I honestly think he gets so involved in his world (so too with David Lynch, another brilliant intuitive formalist, but he uses sound more than image) that he can't find a valid way to leave it.

 

So...

 

Spielberg Rocks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenstein, Renoir, Lang have ALL been dead for a long time. Their story is written.

 

I couldn't disagree more, I think art is a living thing even if the artist is not.

 

Eiseinstein's theories may be problematic - I would say so myself but then I think they are in some sense rationales dircted at himself (a whole 'nother discussion) but I can see - almost the "hand" of Eisenstein every time I turn on a TV...

 

The last time I saw Fritz Lang's "M" - a film I'd nearly consigned to the "war horse" dept - I was astonished how it reall could stand as the template for film noir (remember Lang made some great films in Hollywood subsequently....)

 

For me the filmmakers who are of the deepest interest are those who one can return to, and learn more, learn different things. It's ongoing..

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Also, the fact that you omitted Wyler and Welles from your list hints to me that you have an anti-corporate bias, of which I'm somewhat wary.

Welles hardly was a corporate filmmaker and Wyler I simply left out, because I am not familiar enough with his work.

 

I would hardly say that I have an anti-corporate bias. I just don't think that Hollywood films are very original or good in general, but then again most films that I see, wherever they come from, do not strike me as special. There's very few films every year that I do consider authentic masterpieces. It's probably because I have seen so many films and are very aware of how they are made, structured, how they try to manipulate the audience so that only a true masterpiece manages to excite me. Let's face it, most films don't stand the test of time very well and will be forgotten very fast. As it is the same with any art actually. The stuff that hangs in museums is not the norm, but the exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welles hardly was a corporate filmmaker and Wyler I simply left out, because I am not familiar enough with his work.

 

I would hardly say that I have an anti-corporate bias. I just don't think that Hollywood films are very original or good in general, but then again most films that I see, wherever they come from, do not strike me as special. There's very few films every year that I do consider authentic masterpieces. It's probably because I have seen so many films and are very aware of how they are made, structured, how they try to manipulate the audience so that only a true masterpiece manages to excite me. Let's face it, most films don't stand the test of time very well and will be forgotten very fast. As it is the same with any art actually. The stuff that hangs in museums is not the norm, but the exception.

 

Okay, I'll buy that, with the exception that knowing how a film "works" means that films are harder to appreciate. Many of the best filmmakers are film obsessed, and watch tons of movies worse than their own, often repeatedly--and both enjoy and appreciate them. Understanding the medium should lead you to appreciate it, not dismiss it.

 

That said, you're right about a lack of great films. What, from the past decade, has the promise of really holding up? Maybe The Matrix... Sadly, I can't think of much else... I would like to think that Festen was influential, but I don't think that is the case and its aesthetic is somewhat "radically reactionary" in that it's a call for storytelling over production values.

 

But that doesn't mean one should dismiss the past decade of films entirely. Blame it on auteur theory, but I really enjoyed both War of the Worlds and Munich, and I didn't think either was a great film. By the same token, I don't think The Magnificent Ambersons was that great (very interesting, maybe) but it was a fascinating watch after seeing Citizen Kane. And because of film's brief, largely teleological history, a lot of truly influential films feel dated. For instance, I can recognize that Bicycle Thieves was hugely influential, but I just don't enjoy it that much, and it didn't even feel fresh because I'd seen so many films it inspired before I saw it.

 

If you do want to get into Wyler (of whose films I've still seen very few), check out The Best Years of Our Lives. I actually prefer it, aesthetically, to Renoir, but its story is shamelessly Hollywood. Its use of long takes is pretty stunning, though, and is a wonderful reconcilation of high art aesthetics with Hollywood story-telling and extremely high production values.

 

Lastly, at least cut Spielberg a break. He's making borderline avant garde high art under the guise of blockbusters. Re-watch Minority Report. Even more than Total Recall, even more than Blade Runner, and way more than The Island or what-have-you, it's a real masterpiece of cinematography and a stunning realization of a futuristic world. Just because it's deeply flawed doesn't mean it's not brilliant. And if you dismiss it as conventional or predicatble (especially aesthetically; the script has flaws) you either don't get film at all, or get it so fully that you're de facto the best filmmaker alive. I doubt either is the case.

Edited by Matthew Wauhkonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

By 'works' I actually mean that I become aware very quickly when a filmmaker is not honest and uses certain effects or devices to elicit an emotional reaction from the audience. You know, like killling the family's pet dog and such. Unfortunately in most films it's the plot that drives the characters and not the characters that drive the plot, as it should be. How many times have two characters ended up together at the end of the film, despite there obvioulsy being no chemistry between them, for the simple reason that it is an expected convention.

 

As for Spielberg, I do actually check out all his films in the cinema and while I appreciate the interesting looks that he creates, I just don't like his storytelling approach that forces his point of view upon you and you have to accept it in order to enjoy the movie. I actually like to make up my own mind, thank you very much and do not like to be told/manipulated how to feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Spielberg, I do actually check out all his films in the cinema and while I appreciate the interesting looks that he creates, I just don't like his storytelling approach that forces his point of view upon you and you have to accept it in order to enjoy the movie. I actually like to make up my own mind, thank you very much and do not like to be told/manipulated how to feel.

 

I wish I didn't agree with you on this point, but I do--completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

All directing is a form of manipulation, controlling what you see, hear, etc. -- just that some viewers don't enjoy the feeling of being manipulated (I don't care if it's being done well), others enjoy it, some are more sensitive to it than others, etc. And some directors (not Spielberg) are simply bad at manipulating the viewer -- it's like a comic who can't tell a joke well.

 

Now it's true that some stories and how they are directed and acted rely on more subtlety and ambiguity that traditional Hollywood cinema prefers. Some people -- like Max -- prefer that type of non-Hollywood cinema. Some like pretty mainstream fare. Some like both. Chiding Max for his more esoteric tastes is a little like being bothered if he said he didn't eat hot dogs or pizza. But on the same level, chiding people for preferring more mainstream entertainment can come off as being a snob.

 

It's funny, because when I left my office job to go to film school, my co-workers tastes for movies didn't not extend much farther than Schwartzenegger movies, so talking about Wells or Kurosawa, as I did, struck them as me being snooty. Then I get to CalArts and students there tell me that Wells and Kurosawa were too low-brow, commercial and mainstream! So you can't please everyone...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All

It's funny, because when I left my office job to go to film school, my co-workers tastes for movies didn't not extend much farther than Schwartzenegger movies, so talking about Wells or Kurosawa, as I did, struck them as me being snooty. Then I get to CalArts and students there tell me that Wells and Kurosawa were too low-brow, commercial and mainstream! So you can't please everyone...

 

Very well put. I had a similar experience when I left the world of graphic design to go to film school. Ain't the world a funny place? :) I guess my previous point was that a good place to start learning about filmmaking, is where it all started, and how the pioneers of that age had to figure out story telling for audiences. Then move forward in the time line and watch how it's all evolved. It's not that the older filmmakers were "better", it's just that they had to dive into the medium and learn things that all beginning artists in this medium face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I find it very instructional to study older films, particularly silent era movies, for a number of reasons: one is that they influenced later stylistic trends so it helps to sort of backwards engineer how movies are made today and why; two is that some great techniques get lost over time only to be rediscovered later, so why reinvent the wheel; three, the far past is so different than modern movies that it helps to see stuff in a very different vein to avoid just mimicking the latest trends and fads.

 

Oh, and the fourth reason is that many of these old movies are a lot of fun to watch!

 

When I was on a panel discussion recently where DP's were talking about why they do things the way they do (warhorse phrases like "the cinematography is motivated by the story"), Denis Lenoir was a breath of fresh air when he interjected that one shouldn't dismiss pleasure as a motivating element of art-viewing and art-making, the visceral pleasure of seeing and creating images, their colors, the texture of the light, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was on a panel discussion recently where DP's were talking about why they do things the way they do (warhorse phrases like "the cinematography is motivated by the story"), Denis Lenoir was a breath of fresh air when he interjected that one shouldn't dismiss pleasure as a motivating element of art-viewing and art-making, the visceral pleasure of seeing and creating images, their colors, the texture of the light, etc.

 

I don't disagree, but a problem arises with young filmmakers who think that, with phrases like that, it excuses them from having to remain true to the story. I see it in my students all the time and it's something I try to catch and call attention to. Yes, that's a nice shot, the lighting is good, and the framing is nice. But, how does this shot work in the larger frame of the film? And will you even use it? I'm usually answered with "but I really like it". Well, okay, but that was 30 minutes of on set time dedicated to a shot that doesn't fit into the film. So I try to focus them on story story story. THEN we get into the aesthetics of each shot and how each shot should have its own visceral pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day art is about communication. The ultimate desire of the true artist is almost always to impart to others some sense of the world as they saw, experienced, or imagined it.

Who ever said that? Art is the materialization of an idea within a medium, and that manipulated medium is art even if its existence is only known and experienced by the artist himself. Since a piece of art is the materialization of an idea, it does have the direct propensity to communicate, and such is certainly a high purpose of art, but it is not necessary.

 

This is also why "art" is so subjective - I believe better art is the materialization of a better idea, but "better idea" cannot be measured or quantified. It can be supported, but not proven, as we have experienced in this very thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that. I offered this example as a counterpoint to all those Predator fans out there who think that their opinion is as valid as anyones. Which coincidentally is a similar argument I had with my 10 year old niece who keeps on insisting that Britney Spears is the best musician in the world. Ever!

 

DUDE, Britmey Rocks! Decent actress too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is the materialization of an idea within a medium

 

I think that's also called business...or science...or witchcraft...

 

That's the worst definition of art I've ever heard...I've never considered myself an artist...but I do now...

 

The bag-lady down my street is a great artist...because she materialized something in my alley the other day...sure it smelled really bad and lots of flies were hanging out...but sometimes WE artists have to suffer a little bit...

 

I apologize already...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's also called business...or science...or witchcraft...

 

That's the worst definition of art I've ever heard...I've never considered myself an artist...but I do now...

 

The bag-lady down my street is a great artist...because she materialized something in my alley the other day...sure it smelled really bad and lots of flies were hanging out...but sometimes WE artists have to suffer a little bit...

 

I apologize already...

Heidegger gives a pretty strong definition of what art is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And will you even use it? I'm usually answered with "but I really like it". Well, okay, but that was 30 minutes of on set time dedicated to a shot that doesn't fit into the film. So I try to focus them on story story story. THEN we get into the aesthetics of each shot and how each shot should have its own visceral pleasure.

 

I've seen many cinematography students get very bogged down early on with concerns over story rather than being given the freedom to experiment. There's no question that cinematography can and should be story-driven in many cases. But I feel that most students benefit from being allowed early on to test boundaries without constraints. Otherwise they tend to second-guess themselves trying to do what they've seen already done in story-driven films because professors put too much pressure to "tell a story" early on. Later on in their studies, they can start looking at how to apply the things they have learned through experimentation in a more controlled fashion- ie: as influenced by story elements and characters.

 

So I feel its the opposite of your approach: First allow the students to explore their forms and themselves, and then slowly bring them towards an understanding of how to apply what they have learned in a more constrained story setting.

 

AJB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen many cinematography students get very bogged down early on with concerns over story rather than being given the freedom to experiment. There's no question that cinematography can and should be story-driven in many cases. But I feel that most students benefit from being allowed early on to test boundaries without constraints. Otherwise they tend to second-guess themselves trying to do what they've seen already done in story-driven films because professors put too much pressure to "tell a story" early on. Later on in their studies, they can start looking at how to apply the things they have learned through experimentation in a more controlled fashion- ie: as influenced by story elements and characters.

 

So I feel its the opposite of your approach: First allow the students to explore their forms and themselves, and then slowly bring them towards an understanding of how to apply what they have learned in a more constrained story setting.

 

AJB

 

I've found the opposite happens. First and foremost, I find that when given the ability to "go find yourself" most students flail wildly and can't even commit to a single project because they have no restrictions. But I've found the most of my students are capable of finding their creative voice when presented with the problems of story telling. Without that, it's just experimental film, which is fine, but it's a different medium.

 

Now, I'm not saying that students don't get their hands on camera... they do, quickly. They are given that ability to go out and shoot something, then come in and talk about problems they had. Then we get into discussions about film history and techniques. Why these things work and those things don't, why these angles work and those angles don't, and the multitude of ways scenes can be shot (i.e. there's not one right way to shoot a scene, but there are a few wrong ways). The same is true of almost any artistic venture in that it is first important to LEARN the rules before one goes off half cocked trying to break them.

 

I also feel that this method works very well FOR ME and the students that I've had. Every instructor must find their own best way to communicate any type of artistic field to their students. Some might have more success with letting them go hog wild right off the start. That just doesn't work for me. Also, each institution has its own ideas about how things should be taught and one much accommodate for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...