Posted by Sean Hood
Student: You often criticize a film by saying that it is too aware of the audience. But when people make films, especially in the West, the point is to entertain people.
Chogyam Trungpa: If you are completely confident in yourself, you don't have to think about the audience at all. You just do your thing, you just do it properly. This means YOU become the audience. What you make is entertainment, but that needs a certain amount of wisdom. When an artist does a painting for commission, there is a good likelihood that his painting will be one-sided because he is aware of the audience and he has to relate to the educational standards of the audience. If he presents his own style without reference to the audience, they will begin to react and automatically their sophistication will develop and eventually will reach the level of the artist....You see, we have the responsibility of raising the mentality of the audience. People might have to reach out with a certain amount of strain, but it's worth it. The whole civilization then begins to raise its level of sophistication....The beautiful thing about Buddhism, if I may say so, is that Buddhists don't try to con you. They just present what they have to say as it is, take it or leave it.
From "Visual Dharma: Film Workshop," in the COLLECTED WORKS OF CHOGYAM TRUNGPA, Volume Seven, pages 644-645.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Have Movie Critics Become Irrelevant
Posted by Sean Hood
Now that anyone and everyone with an internet connection can be a movie critic, what is the point of professional reviewers? Do we really need someone's professional opinion on NATIONAL TREASURE? Do I really need to read a professional's top-ten-list, which invariably amounts to a re-ordering of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, SAVAGES, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and JUNO, among the other anointed?
But skimming a top ten list in the Wall Street Journal, I came across this paragraph.
"Including a documentary that almost no one has seen may seem like an affectation, but my hope is to get you to see "Manufactured Landscapes," not to impress you with the fashionable obscurity of my taste. Discovering Jennifer Baichwal's film at the New Zealand Film Festival earlier this year -- it also played briefly in this country -- was a perception-changing experience. Inspired by the work of the Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky, "Manufactured Landscapes" starts with an eight-minute tracking shot down one aisle of a Chinese factory the size of a small town. Then it follows Mr. Burtynsky on a tour of industrial Asia in order to show -- without polemics -- the scale of man's activities, and the impact they're having on our planet. I thought I had some sense of that impact until I saw this astonishing doc."
What startled me about that paragraph is that the reviewer, Joe Morgenstern, felt the need to apologize for doing his job. It seems to me that when the internet is flooded with amateur reviews, the only legitimate function of the critic, who travels around the world to film festivals and who does nothing else but watch movies, is to find obscure and under-promoted cinema and bring it to the public's attention. I haven't seen MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES, but I will now.
By extension, I hope that the Filmmakers Alliance posting board and blog give us a forum not only to discuss our all time favorites, but to share those obscure and under-promoted titles that we would otherwise never come across. As filmmakers we can discuss what our own movies could be in the context of these strange little movies that continue to inspire us.
As for the old fashioned newspaper critics and new fangled bloggers who snark and snipe about the next Batman movie, they're only waisting our time.
- sbh
P.S. Not that there's anything wrong with Batman. The trailer looks way cool, although Heath Ledger looks eerily like Brandon Lee in The Crow.
Now that anyone and everyone with an internet connection can be a movie critic, what is the point of professional reviewers? Do we really need someone's professional opinion on NATIONAL TREASURE? Do I really need to read a professional's top-ten-list, which invariably amounts to a re-ordering of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, SAVAGES, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and JUNO, among the other anointed?
But skimming a top ten list in the Wall Street Journal, I came across this paragraph.
"Including a documentary that almost no one has seen may seem like an affectation, but my hope is to get you to see "Manufactured Landscapes," not to impress you with the fashionable obscurity of my taste. Discovering Jennifer Baichwal's film at the New Zealand Film Festival earlier this year -- it also played briefly in this country -- was a perception-changing experience. Inspired by the work of the Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky, "Manufactured Landscapes" starts with an eight-minute tracking shot down one aisle of a Chinese factory the size of a small town. Then it follows Mr. Burtynsky on a tour of industrial Asia in order to show -- without polemics -- the scale of man's activities, and the impact they're having on our planet. I thought I had some sense of that impact until I saw this astonishing doc."
What startled me about that paragraph is that the reviewer, Joe Morgenstern, felt the need to apologize for doing his job. It seems to me that when the internet is flooded with amateur reviews, the only legitimate function of the critic, who travels around the world to film festivals and who does nothing else but watch movies, is to find obscure and under-promoted cinema and bring it to the public's attention. I haven't seen MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES, but I will now.
By extension, I hope that the Filmmakers Alliance posting board and blog give us a forum not only to discuss our all time favorites, but to share those obscure and under-promoted titles that we would otherwise never come across. As filmmakers we can discuss what our own movies could be in the context of these strange little movies that continue to inspire us.
As for the old fashioned newspaper critics and new fangled bloggers who snark and snipe about the next Batman movie, they're only waisting our time.
- sbh
P.S. Not that there's anything wrong with Batman. The trailer looks way cool, although Heath Ledger looks eerily like Brandon Lee in The Crow.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Why Are You A Filmmaker?
Posted by Mark Dufresne
Over the years I've found that my talents all point
to filmmaking. It is the most natural fit for me.
I'm happy to have found filmmaking, because it's
freed me to dream big again...
something that I haven't done in a while.
Posted by Paul Gutrecht
I've been thinking lately about why we go to movies in the first place. I think we like to be entertained, engaged, and challenged in a story-telling environment: it's dark (we're released from our own bodily limitations), and whether we want to know the people around us or not, we are about to experience something with a group of other people (if we're in a theater vs. the living room). It's a story we're interested in, since we chose to be there, but what I've been thinking about is the other story getting told or re-told as you watch a movie.
The only actual motion in a movie theater is the flashing of many frames of film or video at such a fast rate that the illusion of fluid motion is created in our minds. That rapid flashing in combination with the audio create the fluid experience of the story unfolding before our eyes, but it's really unfolding behind them in our brains.
And when the story is good, we feel a connection to the story. Hard to say what that is, but maybe "connection" refers to how the story of the movie, written, directed, performed, edited by someone else and now undfolding in our brain, is stirring up our own memories of experience, dreams, desires, and so on, so that while we "watch" the movie we paid good money to see, we are also connecting on another level to painful and happy experiences, wishes and plans of our own making.
So that when "all is lost" in a movie, we relate to it in some way, and when the "final battle scene" is engaged, we connect on some level with our own battles, and a "new equilibrium" is reached, we compare it to where we went that one time when we were challenged in our own lives in one way or another.
So, I have made a few shorts, and hope to make a feature or two, in an attempt to stir that connection between the story projected and those of the people watching it, maybe to inspire them, to invigorate them in some way with the notion that others have had comparable (or not-comparable, but relatable) experiences and resolved them in this way or that way. So that when the audience leaves the big dark room with all the other people we don't know, we leave with the commone experiene of the movie and our own experience of the movie in relationship to the narrative unfolding within each one of us.
Posted by Carlo Pangalangan
I make films because there is nothing else that I enjoy doing more.And I have little patience for anything else; repetition usually bores me, but an activity as repetitive as shooting several takes or editing the footage down to the a final cut. And there's nothing more satisfying then being able to have a finished film.
I also love to make films because I love seeing the audiences different reactions and interpretations to my work. I love how audiences can accept events happening on the flat screen as a reality, something I unfortunately can't experience with my own films.
Posted by Gina Levy
Why...
I make films because it is both challenging and fulfilling. I have encountered other challenging endeavors--rock climbing, long distance running, quantum physics, advanced chemistry. But in contrast to those, filmmaking demands self-expression and creativity. From nothing, I create a story, a series of words and images that communicate a plot and generate emotion in the audience.
I love filmmaking because it requires me to master a broad array of skills. I need to develop/write compelling stories, collaborate with actors and crew, negotiate with vendors, have a singular vision, possess an aesthetic sensibility, artfully employ music to augment storytelling, build an emotional arc of a story while shooting out of sequence, master the rhythm of editing to take my audience for ride, figure out a way to make a living, understand how lenses, camera format, framing influence story telling and communicate all this clearly to my collaborators and my audience: so many skills and so much knowledge are necessary to become a master filmmaker.
And it requires perseverance. I stumble... I create something that doesn't work, and then I must go back to rewrite, to reshoot, to rework, to make the work work. I must constantly figure out what I don't know and how I can learn more to improve my skills and execution.
But when I am successful, I have manifested a visual and audio experience for people that takes them on a singular and compelling journey. I have realized something that no one else could have created as it comes from my unique experience and understanding of the world. And sometimes I am able to create something that deeply moves people, that takes them to a world they would never have entered, that shows them a different way of seeing things that are right in front of them.
That is why I do it...because it is both extremely hard and extremely rewarding.
Posted by Antony Berrios
Asking a question about why I make films is a complex question.
Not very simple to answer, it's almost like asking why do I breath.
So in some ways for me to make films is to live.
For me it has nothing to do with making money or being famous. It's
not as shallow as that.
For me film is an artistic expression such as painting or composing music.
It's a radical convergence of luck, art and patience.
Some make films to be famous.
Others try and try to say something profound but in the end really
have nothing profound to say at all.
There is of course room in the big gooey pot of filmmaking for everyone.
And in the end no one is more right then the other. That's what makes
it an art form.
One might like Nora Ephron while others prefer
Gaspar Noe.
"The most difficult thing in the world is to reveal yourself, to
express what you have to. As an artist, I feel that we must try many
things - but above all we must dare to fail. You must be willing to
risk everything to really express it all."
-John Cassavetes
Posted by Sean Hood
I make films to explore inner life. I make them to visualize a character's internal conflict, fear, and desire - and then project those private thoughts into external space. I'm more interested in symbolism than realism, dreams than documents, and personas than politics. So, the movies I love tend to be haunting, moody, and intense. I make films (try, work, fail, despair, hope to make them) so that someone might watch and say, "Yes. YES! That's it!" So that they might recognize some ineffable, numinous SOMETHING that they always knew was there but had never seen - and then somehow be changed for watching it.
Over the years I've found that my talents all point
to filmmaking. It is the most natural fit for me.
I'm happy to have found filmmaking, because it's
freed me to dream big again...
something that I haven't done in a while.
Posted by Paul Gutrecht
I've been thinking lately about why we go to movies in the first place. I think we like to be entertained, engaged, and challenged in a story-telling environment: it's dark (we're released from our own bodily limitations), and whether we want to know the people around us or not, we are about to experience something with a group of other people (if we're in a theater vs. the living room). It's a story we're interested in, since we chose to be there, but what I've been thinking about is the other story getting told or re-told as you watch a movie.
The only actual motion in a movie theater is the flashing of many frames of film or video at such a fast rate that the illusion of fluid motion is created in our minds. That rapid flashing in combination with the audio create the fluid experience of the story unfolding before our eyes, but it's really unfolding behind them in our brains.
And when the story is good, we feel a connection to the story. Hard to say what that is, but maybe "connection" refers to how the story of the movie, written, directed, performed, edited by someone else and now undfolding in our brain, is stirring up our own memories of experience, dreams, desires, and so on, so that while we "watch" the movie we paid good money to see, we are also connecting on another level to painful and happy experiences, wishes and plans of our own making.
So that when "all is lost" in a movie, we relate to it in some way, and when the "final battle scene" is engaged, we connect on some level with our own battles, and a "new equilibrium" is reached, we compare it to where we went that one time when we were challenged in our own lives in one way or another.
So, I have made a few shorts, and hope to make a feature or two, in an attempt to stir that connection between the story projected and those of the people watching it, maybe to inspire them, to invigorate them in some way with the notion that others have had comparable (or not-comparable, but relatable) experiences and resolved them in this way or that way. So that when the audience leaves the big dark room with all the other people we don't know, we leave with the commone experiene of the movie and our own experience of the movie in relationship to the narrative unfolding within each one of us.
Posted by Carlo Pangalangan
I make films because there is nothing else that I enjoy doing more.And I have little patience for anything else; repetition usually bores me, but an activity as repetitive as shooting several takes or editing the footage down to the a final cut. And there's nothing more satisfying then being able to have a finished film.
I also love to make films because I love seeing the audiences different reactions and interpretations to my work. I love how audiences can accept events happening on the flat screen as a reality, something I unfortunately can't experience with my own films.
Posted by Gina Levy
Why...
I make films because it is both challenging and fulfilling. I have encountered other challenging endeavors--rock climbing, long distance running, quantum physics, advanced chemistry. But in contrast to those, filmmaking demands self-expression and creativity. From nothing, I create a story, a series of words and images that communicate a plot and generate emotion in the audience.
I love filmmaking because it requires me to master a broad array of skills. I need to develop/write compelling stories, collaborate with actors and crew, negotiate with vendors, have a singular vision, possess an aesthetic sensibility, artfully employ music to augment storytelling, build an emotional arc of a story while shooting out of sequence, master the rhythm of editing to take my audience for ride, figure out a way to make a living, understand how lenses, camera format, framing influence story telling and communicate all this clearly to my collaborators and my audience: so many skills and so much knowledge are necessary to become a master filmmaker.
And it requires perseverance. I stumble... I create something that doesn't work, and then I must go back to rewrite, to reshoot, to rework, to make the work work. I must constantly figure out what I don't know and how I can learn more to improve my skills and execution.
But when I am successful, I have manifested a visual and audio experience for people that takes them on a singular and compelling journey. I have realized something that no one else could have created as it comes from my unique experience and understanding of the world. And sometimes I am able to create something that deeply moves people, that takes them to a world they would never have entered, that shows them a different way of seeing things that are right in front of them.
That is why I do it...because it is both extremely hard and extremely rewarding.
Posted by Antony Berrios
Asking a question about why I make films is a complex question.
Not very simple to answer, it's almost like asking why do I breath.
So in some ways for me to make films is to live.
For me it has nothing to do with making money or being famous. It's
not as shallow as that.
For me film is an artistic expression such as painting or composing music.
It's a radical convergence of luck, art and patience.
Some make films to be famous.
Others try and try to say something profound but in the end really
have nothing profound to say at all.
There is of course room in the big gooey pot of filmmaking for everyone.
And in the end no one is more right then the other. That's what makes
it an art form.
One might like Nora Ephron while others prefer
Gaspar Noe.
"The most difficult thing in the world is to reveal yourself, to
express what you have to. As an artist, I feel that we must try many
things - but above all we must dare to fail. You must be willing to
risk everything to really express it all."
-John Cassavetes
Posted by Sean Hood
I make films to explore inner life. I make them to visualize a character's internal conflict, fear, and desire - and then project those private thoughts into external space. I'm more interested in symbolism than realism, dreams than documents, and personas than politics. So, the movies I love tend to be haunting, moody, and intense. I make films (try, work, fail, despair, hope to make them) so that someone might watch and say, "Yes. YES! That's it!" So that they might recognize some ineffable, numinous SOMETHING that they always knew was there but had never seen - and then somehow be changed for watching it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
