Creating new styles, but keeping meaning

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I've been trying to come up with some new inventive styles of cinematography. And they really do fly in the face of the theory behind the last 100 years of film making.

 

BUT, they don't actually have any meaning. They're just, creative wacky ideas.

 

To actually become recognised by inventing a new style, do you really have to work on the meaning behind it? Or are you praised for being wild and going completely against the conformed styles?

 

Thanks for any suggestions.

Dan.

[Gordon Highland]

Style without substance. Unless you're advancing the storyline, it doesn't have much place in narrative filmmaking, and is purely a distraction. Might be ok for a short-form music video or something. I'd hate to be thought of as the guy who came up with a new technique that always took viewers out of the story. And of course, even if it's good, the person who comes up with it might not be remembered, but the guy who develops and perfects it later, or has the means to get it in front of the most people, just like in business. McDonald's neither invented nor makes the best hamburgers.

 

Put your efforts into finding unique stories to tell. Or find a new POV to place the camera, but I think innovation comes out of story-driven necessity, not from a desire to innovate for the sake of personal glory. There's a great quote something along the lines of "the true voyage of discovery lies not in finding new experiences, but seeing them through new eyes."

[DavidSloan]

  I'd hate to be thought of as the guy who came up with a new technique that always took viewers out of the story. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean Godard? :ph34r:

[David Mullen ASC]

Most styles, except those involving digital efx manipulation or sound editing, were tried and discarded by 1928, so the odds that you've come up with something new are low, and if you have, the odds that it would be highly distracting are high -- except for perhaps a music video where you can have style for style's sake.

 

I once took a course in the history of experimental film so I'm not sure what hasn't been tried over the past 100 years, even endoscopic photography.

 

The only innovation that lasts tends to arise out of a need to solve a particular narrative problem.

[Sam Wells]

I've been trying to come up with some new inventive styles of cinematography. And they really do fly in the face of the theory behind the last 100 years of film making.

 

BUT, they don't actually have any meaning. They're just, creative wacky ideas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why not try them ? It's not like you're going to be fired by Disney here :D

 

See what meaning comes from those ideas; how can you know this if they remain hypothetical ?

 

At least you will know if they are fluid or awkward; if they're awkward perhaps they "fly in the face of the theory.. etc.." but don't otherwise "fly"

 

If they have fluidity, then you can ask "what does this flow mean ?" and see what the next step is.

 

-Sam

[timHealy]

I always feel that the film business is a great business for proving someone wrong when they say no. So whenever someones asks a question of me like "Can it be done?" I'll always voice concerns and what if's, but usually say let's give it a try. So why not try what you have in mind. I think we all learn more from our mistakes than our successes in many aspects of our lives, not just film.

 

best,

 

Tim

Edited June 26, 2005 by heel_e