Personal View site logo
Fixation
  • 60 Replies sorted by
  • The internet is about inter-personal computing, about sharing information. Filmmaking is about personal creativity and real life people. One of the reasons people talk more about gear on the internet is due to the nature of the internet. Also I have found most people quite uninterested in anyone else's creativity, they are far more interested in their own. Actually bitrates, gear, lenses, advice all goes toward inspiring them to be creative and to shoot.

    I feel technology without creativity or the arts is a lost cause.
    Equally I feel the arts - especially filmmaking - would be lost without technology.

    That people are more interested in the tech on the internet doesn't surprise me. Real life creative bonds in person are the hard part when it comes to filmmaking, and the internet can only go so far in sparking that off before distance and work-load come between people.

    The best way to spark a filmmaking revolution is actually for people en-masse to leave their office jobs and to become freelance artists. Not easy, but then they'd be putting 100% effort into building their own life rather than working to build someone else's.
  • i think that the direction of intimate, small stories, when you WANT to have organic look, not a hollywood look, but more rough, 70's small movies (think of Nicholas Roeg?)
    the GH2 and dslr are a very good and exact target.
  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    I also realize you're talking about interesting ways to shoot material out, I don't know if I agree that "big guys" can't cut budgets because it means a cut to income. I do know that cutting crew means other areas suffer. The working reality and the perceived reality are two different things.

    And, even then on the money side, well... some people don't have a second job or a primary source of income. Can you really blame them for wanting to support their families or live off of doing this stuff?

    On the "use same main script ideas" that's pretty much what I pointed out, it happens and it will continue to happen. People are influenced by what compels them and, as a society of emotional creatures, we gravitate toward "Romeo and Juliet" because we feel like we A) Understand it and B) have an emotion to convey.

    Neither side of the coin should be damned: if you remove the major system, it leaves no money to flow down to the struggling no-name. If you remove the struggling no-name, all sense of the art is lost in commerce. There cannot be light without dark.

    Yes, figure out interesting ways to shoot things, sometimes you don't need a massive crew and if you can't afford one, you have to take a different route to get where you want to go. There are people doing this all around the world right now, most of which will never see a dime for their efforts and will continue to work a primary job until they no longer can afford the time or energy to expend on their hobby.

    Those who find niche topics to cover may discover a small well of sustainable income to do more.

    It all boils down to choice, really.
  • Maybe that's why I find it hard to find the special stuff. I don't want to see things that try to be smart, or try to look good. I want to see something that is smart and looks good because of it, if you understand what I mean.

    Of course, target is the most important for anything. Though the number one target audience is most always oneself (this does not mean to dismiss the audience). Because people have certain personal things to tell, certain ways of seeing the world. I hope. Best is to focus on something specific to you, and really hone in on it. That's a craft, to have that one thing that defines you, and repeat it in different ways.
  • Unfortunately the narratives people want to see, the narratives most people want to make, imo, are the battle tested ones: Saving the princess, the incredible journey, etc. You can always find a unique interpretation, for example, ROCKY is really a version of CINDERELLA.

    Miniaturize it, camouflage it, reimagine it, but abandon the master narratives? I vote thumbs down.

    But I do think we could use a few movies with LESS muzzle flashes done in After Effects.

  • @brianluce

    Yeah, heroes journey is ingrained in our every day existence, trying to escape it is trying to make something that is alien to you, and will be alien to most people. Even esoteric experiments like RUBBER fall into this convention eventually.
  • I hate to look at stories as many do, as in the mythic structure. It tries to define too much in the terminology. It creates boundaries in the minds of people. Though I do see a master narrative structure that defines stories.
  • >Miniaturize it, camouflage it, reimagine it, but abandon the master narratives?

    Yep. Abandon and bury them deep.
    As you need to move from the animal side to the human side.
    And "saving the princess, the incredible journey" is all about animal side of things.

    Can you tell me story of inventor who worked 5 years on new thing, solved hundreds of problems in the way?
    Yes, you can. But it require differen skill.
    And no, big guys can't do this, as big crowds won't look at this.
  • @vVitaliy_Kiselev

    Yes, precisely. A large audience will not be keen to look at this.

    Again, look at Primer as an example, which is borderline genre. I love this movie to death, it is sleepy, but so intricately woven and intense in tone that I am always fixed whenever I watch it. I've seen it at least 25 times. Have purchased it for gifts.

    But I see the look on people's faces when they watch it and it just doesn't connect.

    I would love to do a Primer, when I have a lot of money and don't have to worry about paying rent next month.

    On the "animal side of things", you are also right. DRIVE is a great modern example of the animalistic nature of the heroes journey. Not sure if you've seen it or you like it, but it's also one that I am looking forward to owning. It still cost millions to do, though.
  • @VK "Idea to mimick big studios on lower level with inappropriate crew.
    Idea to use same main script ideas, etc.
    You can find much more interesting and specific idea, as your film can be aimed to small and specific audience.
    Big guys can't do this, as it means instant cut in their income."

    I wrote a thread about this on another forum an people got really offended.

    People who aren't creative and innovative love to mimic the "professional" work flow, because in the end, they really don't have a vision and use "the industry" as a crutch and scapegoat.

    These days we finally have the opportunity to merge jobs into what they should be and move production models forward... but everyone is stuck with the "that's how THEY do it" mentality. It's so stupid. The idea that the director, cinematographer, and editor are all different people on films blows my mind. There's just no way you should be directing if you do not understand cinematography and editing first. You're then, basically, just "opinion" giving. Which is sadly what most modern directing is. Given enough time, the director should be able to do everything on set... you hire a DP to save time, not to make your film look good. If you can't make a film look good on your own... you don't deserve it to.

    Those who can't create... imitate. It's the catalyst of the industry "obsession".


    I've been on a shoot in hollywood-land where I've actually heard a director say "I like having a DP, because I can just blame them if it doesn't look good."

    This is the epitome of hollywood. It's all a big game of people hiring other people to blame when something fails. The last thing on people's mind is making something original.

  • I was wondering about this discussion because it seems to be about making movies, and "movie" type stories with big narratives (whatever that means). Personally what I want to do is create videos that help people promote their music, or tell the story of projects. I'm not that interested in pretending to be a film director!!
  • Indeed Mark. There are a thousand different ways to be an artist or a filmmaker without resorting to a crew or Hollywood narrative.
  • >Personally what I want to do is create videos that help people promote their music, or tell the story of projects. I'm not that interested in pretending to be a film director!!

    Generally this is the thing we are talking about.
    As i modern times you can, for example, promote music to specific niche.
    For example, some fan base of all TV series :-)
  • My flatmate is a musician, what I find is he needs feeding with images to use to promote his music especially online, and because he is an audio guy not visual, it comes down to us to provide them for him.
  • I think you have a point, Vitaliy. There is a fixation on fame, money, .. all those things that really don't matter. And those who don't have it, are the ones that make the interesting films that don't spend their time shooting for the moon or watching camera shootouts, but rather gathering experience and developing their talent.
    Yes, i totally agree here.
  • @Vitaliy

    Yep. Abandon and bury them deep. (referring to a commonly used narrative)
    As you need to move from the animal side to the human side.
    And "saving the princess, the incredible journey" is all about animal side of things.
    >>>>>>>>>
    I'm not sure what you mean by "Animal" side. If you mean that classic narrative structures are designed to provoke visceral reactions from the viewer, such as laughter, fear, excitement, sadness, then yes, of course, but I then don't know what the "Human side" would mean. If you mean making some political statements or social observation, you won't find much interest from viewers. Great art is never about such things, high level art is inherently unpolitical.
    I have no issue with classic narrative structures, I think they've lasted so long for a reason: They work! Just like 24p works! The problem is when these structures become predictable, gimmicky and cliche and that's the challenge to the filmmaker or writer or musician, to keep things fresh and unpredictible. "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" felt fresh to me, yet it was an obvious version of a Homeric Epic Poem.

  • I get a sense from a lot of the DSLR filmmaker types - heck, just low-end production in general, on whatever camera - that there's not a strong sense of film history there. I think it's crucial if we're going to try to do something that isn't just a poorer version of what Hollywood has mastered that we don't forget (or never learn) the history.

    I know we sometimes talk about Tarkovsky, maybe because of the lenses, but see the films! And those of Cassavetes, Bresson, Godard, Ozu, Straub-Huillet, Antonioni, Bergman, Buñuel, Hou, Kiarostami, Tarr, Denis, Grandrieux, Wiseman, Tsai, Weerasethakul, Costa, Alonso, the list can go on and on and on. For way too many people, these are seen as things only pretentious film students care about. Having been to film school myself, I can tell you - most of them didn't care either! The world of cinema is so much more broad and exciting than most people give it credit for. And it's a hell of a lot bigger than your fucking Netflix queue! :)

    It's a bit like studying biology and trying to have a research breakthrough without reading the work of generations of people who came before you. We as filmmakers rarely seem to want to benefit from the many lifetimes spent pioneering something new and exciting in this medium, and we end up just imitating the same old tired genres and conventions. Sorry if I sound too preachy but I like what VK is saying here because all too often I feel like I just have to turn off half of my brain when I talk filmmaking from a production standpoint.

    Sorry for the preachy post!
  • I'm sympathetic to Hollywood, I'm not happy that every thing they produce is an existing brand -- be it a book, theme park ride, or comic book. But at the same time, the typical feature is North of 100 million to produce. That's a pretty big bet, one or two duds and your career is over. So they manage the risk, hedge their bets, and that is why we get Pirates of the Caribbean 5.
  • @Oedipax

    A respectable, level-headed, post.

    The reality of it is, though, as much as people want to say that it shouldn't be about money, this that or the other... well, cool... It seems like everyone here has incredible financial security and can afford to spend a lot of their spare time being innovative and revolutionary story tellers.

    For the rest of us, without nine to five day jobs, aren't living with our parents, and doing this and only this... well, money is important. You find money by going to people with money who want to make money. You get to people who have money and want to make money by showing that you know how to make something that generates money.

    After you have money, then you can be Cassavetes, Bresson, Godard, Ozu, Straub-Huillet, Antonioni, Bergman, Buñuel, Hou, Kiarostami, Tarr, Denis, Grandrieux... or if you want to be modern, Coppola (Sofia).

    Do you know what most of those people have in common: they didnt' come from poor families... and guys like Godard were influenced by filmmakers before himself.

    These luxuries are not ones that most of us possess, paths are different, everyone should be allowed to walk the one they choose without criticism of those who walk different paths, or do not walk at all.
  • @kholi, it's a good counterpoint. You'll notice a lot of the names I mentioned weren't American - I don't think it's because we Americans lack something artistic that our European friends possess solely on their own. It probably comes down more to economics, state funding for cinema, having more of a social safety net, and so on. Of course there are cultural differences too, but...

    That having been said, there are a lot of working filmmakers in the U.S. too - working in the sense that they are not earning a living with their films but instead create in their free time. Especially in the experimental cinema world, people like Brakhage always made a living teaching and maybe eventually touring as guest lecturer. Even Cassavetes was a working actor, it's not like he got rich off the receipts for A Woman Under the Influence or anything.

    In the case of Godard, he did indeed come from a moneyed background but had more or less broken with it by the time he was making films - it was more the fortuitous meeting with certain producers after working as a critic for a while that made it possible.

    But today I think we're already so far ahead on a lot of fixed costs - like the camera, the editing equipment, post-production, the distribution channel (if we're talking online, not theatrical) - that there are less excuses than ever to not be making interesting work. Not at the level of a major Hollywood filmmaker, but on a small regional indie kind of scale. Kind of like what Kentucker Audley is doing - now there's someone I think most DSLR filmmakers will cringe when they see the work, because it's very technically raw, but I find it interesting, especially his film Holy Land (which you can see on Vimeo, btw).

    Anyway. Good discussion everyone.
  • >I then don't know what the "Human side" would mean.

    Human side allows us to expirience much deeper emotions.
    Human side is the real creative process, discovery of new formula, building things, teaching other people, cleaning floors each day for 8 hours.
    And I do not mean showing result of the work only.
    You, normally do not see human side on TV, only results could pass the filter.
    Somehow motherfuckers who make terrible films showed on limited fests started to think that they are creative.
    They are FUCKING NOT CREATIVE.
    Mother with three children on the job from 8 till 8. She is creative.
  • Art is not a pastime but a priesthood.
    Jean Cocteau
  • Since it seems somewhat on topic, I will share some of the opinions that I have formed after taking an Aesthetics course this last semester at university (this is the study of philosophy on art). Of course we studied the major historical philosophical schools concerning art . . . representational (art is that which mimics), emotional (art is that which gives the emotion of the artist to the viewer), formalism (art is that which is aesthetically beautiful).

    But the theory that most intrigued me was one I suppose is best called transcendence. This theory proposes that good, true art is that which facilitates a connection with the transcendent. It reveals that special spark, connects you and opens your eyes to something outside yourself.

    This is so far the explanation of art which I am most satisfied with, partially because it does not negate what the other theories value. A connection with reality, the imparting of emotion, and good aesthetic form are all useful tools for facilitating something special, but in and of themselves, they can be empty traps. Perhaps this is what @Vitaliy_Kiselev is getting at when he mentions "the human side" . . . there's something more there, something outside one's self that is experienced in a good film, or any good art.

    There's my 2c. I've spent my time on the interwebz for today, and now I'm going to spend some time not staring at a stupid screen.
  • The problem with the mother of 3 is, chances are she's boring as hell. But to be fair to her, most people are as well.

    To me...."non traditional narratives" are usually code words for "boring", kind of like "alternative comedy" are code words for not funny.

    While a certain amount of "truth" is important in art...I like my fictions to be fictitious...for the most part.
  • Well, if we're going into the realm of art (which is a philosophical mine field) then I have to cite my old Henri Matisse: "Il faut tout savoir. Il faut tout oublier" "Know everything. Forget everything", at least that is what my teachers in art school used to say, quoting him. I guess it's about the road to creation. Before you can create anything meaningful, it's good to study. But when you create, it has to be instinctive and not theoretically aware.

    I guess we all here at PV are at different stages on this road, learning stuff along the way.

    Or in the words of another great warrior: "You must unlearn what you have learned!" ;)

    BTW: Nice touch with the snowflakes!