I love this quote!!

[James Steven Beverly]

No, some of us serve the story.

 

The only purpose of which is to entertain an audience. A story not told told to an audience is worthless so ultimately the story and those who MAKE the story serve the audience.

 

It's pretty obvious by the quote. If you want to argue the point, feel free to back up your claim that the person quoted has more experience than both of us combined and tell us who is being quoted. There's no name attached. That quote falls under the header 'employers'. That says nothing about title or experience. That person could be a first year cat wrangler.

 

Well, having looked up your credits of which I could only find a 2008 student film at the Full Sail website and knowing MY credits, I'm fairly certain someone the UK Film Council deemed worthy of quoting has more credits.

 

Baloney. A canvas stretcher has no shared creative ownership over the painting that graces the canvas, nor does the paint mixer, nor does the model or the architecture she stands within, nor does the sandwich maker who feeds the artist. 'This is our film' is a cheesy pep talk cliche. And people get fired all the time in the industry. Even directors get fired. Everyone is dispensable.

 

If the canvas didn't get stretched the painting doesn't get painted, if the paint mixer doesn't mix the paint, that painting doesn't get made, if the artist isn't feed, he dies and the painting doesn't get made, now the artist can stretch his own canvas, mix his own paint and make his own sandwich but that just makes HIM the canvas stretcher, the paint mixer and the sandwich maker. The job STILL has to be done in order for the "art" to be made and CAN'T be made if the the job is NOT DONE. It's not a cheesy pep talk cliche, it's a FACT OF LIFE on a filmset. Your "art"

is TOTALLY dependent on the craftsmen that you surround yourself with and you CAN NOT practice your "art" without them ESPECIALLY on a film set, and to think so is the height of arrogance, also, re-read my post, I SAID "NO ONE in the chain is indispensable, nor are they irreplaceable and a good director knows this." or to but it into terms that are easier to understand, every job on a film set is necessary to get the film done but even the writer and director can be replaced and the film can move on. The Wizard of Oz had several different writers, 5 different directors and a major cast change 10 days into production yet despite this, it is considered a GREAT piece of cinematic art. Considering that, the "artist" being solely responsible for the "art" in the project fall flat on it's face. Baloney? The baloney is having the arrogance to think one can anoint one's self an "artist".

Edited September 13, 2010 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

I don't know, it's an alright quote. Seems like it's that attitude which churns out the same old hackneyed movies every year. You can certainly look at filmmaking with that cynical realism, but I prefer to think of it as more magical.

OH, I never said movies aren't magical. They are the most magical thing man has ever produced, but the PROCESS the making films is a very practical affair. It's not cynical realism, it's commonsense realism. No matter the film, whether a masterpiece like Vertigo or a hackneyed piece of tripe like The Dukes of Hazzard, the process of making the product must be practical. Hitchcock was an infinitely practical man, planning every shot then sticking to the plan and executing them flawlessly, as was Kubrick who once fired a camera assistant for carrying a mag upside down, his attitude being that every job was important on a film set and should be done correctly.

[Mike Lary]

Well, having looked up your credits of which I could only find a 2008 student film at the Full Sail website and knowing MY credits, I'm fairly certain someone the UK Film Council deemed worthy of quoting has more credits.

So what you're saying is that you were blowing smoke because you actually have no idea who you were quoting. That's in bad form. As far as my credits are concerned, I never worked on a film at Full Sail, so you have the wrong guy. Since you decided to make a childish attempt to attack me personally, I'm going to set you to 'ignore' in my preferences along with the names of a select few other blowhards on this site who feel it necessary to speak with authority about things they don't comprehend. Best of luck with your station in life.

[Dom Jaeger]

... the PROCESS the making films is a very practical affair. It's not cynical realism, it's commonsense realism. No matter the film, whether a masterpiece like Vertigo or a hackneyed piece of tripe like The Dukes of Hazzard, the process of making the product must be practical. Hitchcock was an infinitely practical man, planning every shot then sticking to the plan and executing them flawlessly...

 

Any creative endeavour requires practical processes, a painter uses brushstrokes, a musician strums an instrument, a chef stirs a pot etc. But behind each practical step is a decision, one choice among many options. What determines that choice is not merely how does 'a' get to 'b', but less tangible things like mood, nuance, rhythm and style. These things are not simply practical responses to a problem, they require what would generally be referred to as an artistic sensibility. They require using a part of the mind that is abstract and poetic.

 

It's the difference between a house painter using finely honed skills to perfectly render a wall, and a portrait painter using equally honed skills but adding a depth of feeling to the work to elicit an emotional response, to communicate. One is an artisan, the other an artist. Within the sphere of filmmaking there are some films as bland as monotone walls and others that burn a hole in your soul. The attitude embodied in your quote would only ever produce the former.

 

You seem to have a problem with the term "artist" as if it is an arrogance to claim such an aspiration. Perhaps you've watched too many pretentious art house films. Talentless people who try too hard to be deep or "arty" or intellectual can be bores, I agree, but it's nonetheless a valid pursuit. There's no arrogance in trying to be creative and thoughtful. Far better than a grey world of only "practical outcomes".

 

I found this Kubrick quote which I think sums up his approach well:

 

"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."

 

Now this is classic metaphorical thinking, about as far removed from the plodding practical realism of a "manufacturing industry" as you can get. Kubrick didn't start with this idea and then use a "practical hands on approach" to translate it into a film, the idea informs every decision made during the process of creation.

[James Steven Beverly]

So what you're saying is that you were blowing smoke because you actually have no idea who you were quoting. That's in bad form. As far as my credits are concerned, I never worked on a film at Full Sail, so you have the wrong guy. Since you decided to make a childish attempt to attack me personally, I'm going to set you to 'ignore' in my preferences along with the names of a select few other blowhards on this site who feel it necessary to speak with authority about things they don't comprehend. Best of luck with your station in life.

 

So this is not you:

 

http://buzzstage.com/project/the-cure

 

Well, that's a shame because that's the only credit associated with that name in the motion picture field. There was a website advertising this same "Mike Lary" as a cinematogrpher and listing this same student film:

 

http://oxygenhabit.com/mikelary/

 

I have, however, not been able to confirm a Mike Lary as a cinematographer or credited in the camera department on IMDB or any other site so unless you are using another name, that is the only Mike Lary I've found.

 

As for starting a personal attack, Blowhard sir? Don't comprehend sir? Baloney sir! You couldn't BUY a clue. If you knew HALF of what I know your head would explode. I speak what I know with authority and with confidence, but you're right about one thing, speaking with you is totally pointless. So you go off and be an "artist". I'll treat the people I work with, with the respect and gratitude they deserve. My station will be just fine, buddy.

[Brian Drysdale]

David Lean regarded himself as a craftsman rather than a artist, I've never heard how Kubrick regarded himself, although he always put his own personal stamp on his films. Unfortunately, many directors aren't in that position, in reality they are just the hired help following a brief. If they're lucky they're working with really good scripts and can produce good work. In the worst case, they're just expected to move the actors around, over covering with enough camera angles to keep the producer happy during the edit.

[James Steven Beverly]

Within the sphere of filmmaking there are some films as bland as monotone walls and others that burn a hole in your soul. The attitude embodied in your quote would only ever produce the former.

 

I'm sorry, I have to smile at that. I was watching Jaws: The True Story the other night and I've heard this in several other interviews, Spielberg said the reason the film was such a success was because the shark didn't work. He had planned a whole different movie,when he first heard John Williams' score he didn't think that much of it and he spent most of his time dealing with tides, wind waves and currents instead of directing. As William Goldman once said, "Nobody knows anything." Van Gogh never sold a painting in his life except to his brother who was supporting him anyway and NO ONE considered his work great art at the time. It BECAME ART much later when people DECIDED it was art. See the difference is that with a film, the writer contributes his role, the director contributed his part, the location scout contributes his part, the production designer contributes his part, the Cinematographer contributes his part, the costumer contributes their part, the propman contributes his part, the actors contribute their part, the effects department contributes their part, The editor contributes his part, the post house contributes their part, the post production sound contributes their part, the composer contributes his part and so on and so on. It is this collaboration that becomes more that the sum of the parts so how can you POSSIBLY call it your art? You can do EVERYTHING RIGHT, have the best director, the best writer, the best actors and still have a miserable failure or do everything wrong and end up with lightening in a bottle. What burns through your soul is what YOU perceive, not necessarily what the film maker intended.

 

You seem to have a problem with the term "artist" as if it is an arrogance to claim such an aspiration. Perhaps you've watched too many pretentious art house films. Talentless people who try too hard to be deep or "arty" or intellectual can be bores, I agree, but it's nonetheless a valid pursuit. There's no arrogance in trying to be creative and thoughtful. Far better than a grey world of only "practical outcomes".

 

I actually LIKE artsy movies. The problem I have is with people calling THEMSELVES artists as if they are somehow anointed by the almighty to bring light upon the unwashed masses. Let me reiterate, you are NOT and artist until someone else finds art in your work. And who ever said artisans aren't creative and thoughtful and only capable of produce a gray world of "practical outcomes"? As for looking down on house painters, there's another job on a film set who contributes his part, it's called a standby painter and he is responsible for handling all painting problems on set which includes painting walls, trim ect. as well as specialty painting such as fake rock or marble. They also are responsible for creating fake lighting effects like light shining on a wall through a window so to better control light thus helping to enhance the illusion and contribute to the "art" of the scene.

 

 

I found this Kubrick quote which I think sums up his approach well:

 

"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."

 

What he's talking about is what the audience experiences when they see a film, not how he makes the film. Sure one says to one's self, "What should the audience be feeling here?" and gets an idea or 2 in his head then communicates what he wants to his staff, who in turn take a practical approach to turn those ideas into a visual image, the result being when the audience sees the work, they're involved with the emotion and rhythm of the scene.

 

 

Now this is classic metaphorical thinking, about as far removed from the plodding practical realism of a "manufacturing industry" as you can get. Kubrick didn't start with this idea and then use a "practical hands on approach" to translate it into a film, the idea informs every decision made during the process of creation.

No sir, it's not metaphorical at all and that is exactly what he did. Take a look at the level of pre-planning Kubrick did on his pictures. He was a control freak that planned out everything. I've seen documentaries when some of his production notes and materials where shown and he had a warehouse full of every detail, it was staggering. Hitchcock once asked an executive if he would like to see his film (I think it was North by Northwest) this was before it was made, then took him in to see the storyboards. The kind of thorough, plodding, practical, realistic approach to the problems of turning words on a page into visual image is exactly as much a "manufacturing industry" situation as you can get. You're building a film from the blueprint laid out by the author, using highly skilled labor and specialized tools and materials to build the components at a set cost, within a set time. Once all the components are finished, they are sent off to be assembled where the final touches are added and the product is packaged and sold to the public. This is not cynical it's the just the way the business works. B)

[denny desuza]

And i love this quote

 

Heat is required to forge anything. Every great accomplishment is the story of a flaming heart.

[Guest dino]

good quote

 

i like it

[justin mark]

good quote

 

 

i like it too

 

____________________

bus accident lawyer connecticut

Edited January 21, 2011 by justin mark

[James Steven Beverly]

It is the fire running through your veins that keeps your dream alive in a cold indifferent world. B)

[alex ford]

A story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end... but not necessarily in that order.

 

________________________

Seattle Electrician

Edited February 17, 2011 by alex ford

[frederico parreira]

so one cannot name himself an artist, thats not legitimate, u say, but one can name himself a businessman, that is ok?

 

man, for sure some directores (and all the other places needed to make a film) are not artists, but some are. doesnt matter what they call themselves, but it matters the APPROACH they take on what they do. so, to consider film a product, that certainly shapes up your approach. very well. i am not into that.

 

that was not the approach of my favourite filmakers, and that is not the approach of my favourite painters, and that is not the approach of my favourite musicians, photographers, etc. just to imagine someone call a canvas by bacon or caravaggio or whatever a 'product' is strange for me. obviously, artists 'sell' their art, so u can call it a product, yes. but that is a constraint, not a point of view, for many. its one thing to start something, just to earn money and make a living(a product), another thing is to use artistic means to express yourself, and THEN sell it (because u give art an economic value).

 

either way, no labels required. each one does it the way he wants, yes?