This is the MOST important aspect of filmmaking.

[PaulGriffith]

I see it said a lot that ________ is the most important part of filmmaking. Some say story, some say acting, others say visual quality or sound quality and others will give a more business minded answer like cost or advertising.

I've felt this way for a while, but the truth is, every element is equally as important as another. It's like a chain, one link breaks and the chain doesn't work. If one area fails, the whole project fails. The reason why is because with a the array of professional movies and television most audience members see on a daily basis, the audience is trained on what looks and sounds good. If one thing is off, the eye (or ear) is drawn straight to that.

There isn't a great movie that looks great but sounds horrible.

There isn't a great movie that has hollywood-level sound and a terrible script.

There isn't a great movie that has a stellar script but looks like it was shot with a potato.

There isn't a great movie that is good except for ______. The "except" is what everyone is going to notice first.

So, that said, I think the list disproves itself because it shows that one "must have" that makes all the other areas work! In my opinion, the MOST important aspect of filmmaking is leadership.

A good leader will take every department into consideration and build a team around it. He or she will learn about avery department from camera to makeup to talent to craft service and bring in other leadership to make every aspect, wether visual, audible, or ethereal the best of the best. THAT's how to make a good movie.

I'm sure some will disagree and argue that "sound is 50%" or "story is 90%", but I think it's all an equal slice of the pie and a good leader will bring 100% attention (wether through him/her or sub levels of leadership) to each area. Hopefully it doesn't come across as discouraging either, it sounds big but I really don't think it's impossible on any budget with a good, err, make that great leader.

Welp! My two cents. What so you guys think?

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

The most important aspect of filmmaking is being able to bring all aspects of a film together to make something fantastic.

 

[baoliun]

Technical side of film making should not raise a problem and should not be even considered an "important aspect of filmmaking" in an ideal world. It is like saying what is the most important in painting is it colors? Canvas? Brushes? Technical stuff is a foundation which allows crew,director and actors to express their creativity.

Film is story. (even in abstract or arthouse sense ) Film is message. That's why there are so many mediocre films with multi million budgets. It is not about the technical stuff,it is the creative stuff.

 

[MiniJamesW]

The most important aspect of filmmaking is being able to bring all aspects of a film together to make something fantastic.

Film is story. (even in abstract or arthouse sense ) Film is message. That's why there are so many mediocre films with multi million budgets. It is not about the technical stuff,it is the creative stuff.

I would add that the other aspects of cinema are also part of "creative stuff." There are films with technically competent cinematography but as Orson Welles said “A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet.” The same goes for sound design, writing, use of music, editing, and every other aspect of film. I feel that most Hollywood films are technically competent but are lacking in the "creative stuff." A lot of arthouse films are also lacking in "creative stuff."

 

[rayw]

Marketing.
With story being a good contender, but frankly - well marketed sh!t puts butts in seats.

Plenty of lovely and visually/aurally appealing films out there that attracted little interest, AKA revenue.



Four monkeys with a camera and some marketing savvy can get a product to market better than high ideals and "purulent filmmaking."
Which of the two are going to make more films seen and appreciated by more people?

 

[PaulGriffith]

Film is story. (even in abstract or arthouse sense ) Film is message.

I agree, story is incredibly important. However, it's a movie, not a book. If it looks like garbage because they framed the shot wrong and overexposed the image then I'm turning it off after the first scene. In fact, I'd probably sit through a visually exciting movie with a terrible story longer hoping it would pick up. The story is one important part of the entire experience.

 

[MiniJamesW]

I agree, story is incredibly important. However, it's a movie, not a book. If it looks like garbage because they framed the shot wrong and overexposed the image then I'm turning it off after the first scene. In fact, I'd probably sit through a visually exciting movie with a terrible story longer hoping it would pick up. The story is one important part of the entire experience.

LOL this is what I always tell people but they always think that story is undoubtedly the king. I think its just that most audiences only notice if a film has technically competent visuals and sound, without thinking much about the artistry behind cinematography and sound. Commercial films try to have an "invisible" approach since the days of Griffith with invisible cuts and an un-intrusive (and usually un-artistic IMO) camera. I guess no one thinks that a technically incompetent film (visually) is worth watching but they don't really care about the visual artistry. We WATCH movies because they are a visual medium, so it's very important that the visuals presented are interesting to the target audience. At the same time, I believe that every aspect of the film is equally important to the experience.

 

[baoliun]

I agree, story is incredibly important. However, it's a movie, not a book. If it looks like garbage because they framed the shot wrong and overexposed the image then I'm turning it off after the first scene. In fact, I'd probably sit through a visually exciting movie with a terrible story longer hoping it would pick up. The story is one important part of the entire experience.

My point is that things like overexposed picture or bad sound are not even worth mentioning. Technically well made film should be expected. How often have you seen Hollywood film which had shit sound?

 

[Alcove Audio]

There isn't a great movie that looks great but sounds horrible....

I'm sure some will disagree and argue that "sound is 50%" or "story is 90%"

If you read my posts carefully, I have always stated that poor sound is the most predominant of TECHNICAL reasons why films are refused by festivals and audiences.

I assert that "Your film will only look as good as it sounds, because 'Sound is half of the experience.'" This is, again, a comment upon the technical aspects of filmmaking. Human beings have five (5) senses - sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. With film you only get to take advantage of two and only two - sight and sound. If you don't pay attention to sound you ignore half of the tools available to affect your audience.

I have also stated that another reason that sound is so important is because most films have dialog, and if the dialog cannot be understood, the story cannot be understood. And if the dialog cannot be understood, the efforts of the actors has been wasted.

If you carefully read my posts I have also stated that filmmaking is probably the most difficult of all art forms as it requires understanding (by the director) and mastery (by the dept. keys) of a myriad of creative technical disciplines, all of which must be coordinated seamlessly.

No single aspect of filmmaking is more important than any other; they are all interlocked.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Commercial films try to have an "invisible" approach since the days of Griffith

"Filmmaking is the art of the invisible; if anyone notices your work you haven't done your job correctly."

 

[MiniJamesW]

"Filmmaking is the art of the invisible; if anyone notices your work you haven't done your job correctly."

I respectfully disagree, I believe that noticing the way Ozu almost never moves the camera, Sergei Eisenstein's use of montage, Kurosawa's modernist narrative techniques, Edward Yang's visual rhymes, Mizoguchi's tracking shots, and the experimental editing of the French New Wave, does not diminish their artistic value. On the contrary, I believe these filmmakers have produced superior work to most films made in the "invisible" commercial filmmaking style. I think both film styles are valid, and this is supported by the fact that both film styles please their target audience. As long as the work enhances the film then the job is done correctly, and in these cases they enhance the film IMO.

Also there are filmmakers who want to remind their audiences that cinema is not reality, and that they should not always be immersed in the illusion such as Jean-Luc Godard and Tsai Ming-liang.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

I don't think that story is important, but more importantly the execution of the story. There is no such thing as an original story. With every idea you have, you could change one aspect such as the characters. setting, or mood and it would already be a film. Although there are clever ways to uniquely execute a film.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I respectfully disagree, I believe that noticing the way Ozu almost never moves the camera, Sergei Eisenstein's use of montage, Kurosawa's modernist narrative techniques, Edward Yang's visual rhymes, Mizoguchi's tracking shots, and the experimental editing of the French New Wave, does not diminish their artistic value. On the contrary, I believe these filmmakers have produced superior work to most films made in the "invisible" commercial filmmaking style. I think both film styles are valid, and this is supported by the fact that both film styles please their target audience. As long as the work enhances the film then the job is done correctly, and in these cases they enhance the film IMO.

Also there are filmmakers who want to remind their audiences that cinema is not reality, and that they should not always be immersed in the illusion such as Jean-Luc Godard and Tsai Ming-liang.

You are thinking like a filmmaker, not Average Joe and Normal Jane. And you are completely misunderstanding my point. Moving or not moving the camera, the use of montage, etc, etc, etc. should be "invisible" to the audience while they are watching the film; if it does not pull the audience out of the film while they are watching it, it is invisible. All the general public notices is when something is technically wrong or when something is very poorly done (like bad acting) that pulls the audience out of the filmic illusion created by the director and his/her team. Average Joe and Normal Jane don't walk out of the theatre discussing shot angles, the color grading or the sound design; they talk about the characters, or the action sequences, or what made them laugh, or, if the filmmaker is lucky, the emotions evoked.

That's what I mean by "invisible." The techniques are irrelevant to the general audience member. The reality or unreality of the film is immaterial to the discussion. Average Joe and Normal Jane don't sit in the theatre thinking "what a great tracking shot" or "what a cool sound effect." They are there to be entertained. Was the audience completely immersed in the film? Were they entertained? That is your job as an artist, to entertain the audience. The best films leave me sitting in the theatre with my mouth a little open, having forgotten my popcorn and my Coke; all I care about is "what happens next?" Anything that pulls me out of the film destroys the experience; the process of the making of the film is no longer invisible.

 

[sfoster]

this whole thread seems pointless.

it's like asking, whats more important water or air?
guess what you're dead without either

 

[RedStudios_TSBnick]

this whole thread seems pointless.

it's like asking, whats more important water or air?
guess what you're dead without either

I can agree with that to a certain extent. You need all of the aspects of filmmaking in order for a film to look good. There is no MOST important aspect in my opinion. Everything is interdependent on each other (being Talent, cinematography, script, etc.)

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

the truth is, every element is equally as important as another. It's like a chain, one link breaks and the chain doesn't work. If one area fails, the whole project fails.

Disagree. You can have bad sound and out of focus images, but if the audience is cheering and clapping when the credits roll you've succeeded.

The most important element? I have to concur with ray, marketing.

 

[mus]

I don't think that story is important, but more importantly the execution of the story.

Exactly. It's not the destination that matters, it's the journey.


A simple story can be just as good as a complex one, the filmmaker just needs to focus on making it appeal to someone.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I see it said a lot that ________ is the most important part of filmmaking. Some say story, some say acting, others say visual quality or sound quality and others will give a more business minded answer like cost or advertising.

I've felt this way for a while, but the truth is, every element is equally as important as another. It's like a chain, one link breaks and the chain doesn't work. If one area fails, the whole project fails. The reason why is because with a the array of professional movies and television most audience members see on a daily basis, the audience is trained on what looks and sounds good. If one thing is off, the eye (or ear) is drawn straight to that.

There isn't a great movie that looks great but sounds horrible.

There isn't a great movie that has hollywood-level sound and a terrible script.

There isn't a great movie that has a stellar script but looks like it was shot with a potato.

There isn't a great movie that is good except for ______. The "except" is what everyone is going to notice first.

So, that said, I think the list disproves itself because it shows that one "must have" that makes all the other areas work! In my opinion, the MOST important aspect of filmmaking is leadership.

A good leader will take every department into consideration and build a team around it. He or she will learn about avery department from camera to makeup to talent to craft service and bring in other leadership to make every aspect, wether visual, audible, or ethereal the best of the best. THAT's how to make a good movie.

I'm sure some will disagree and argue that "sound is 50%" or "story is 90%", but I think it's all an equal slice of the pie and a good leader will bring 100% attention (wether through him/her or sub levels of leadership) to each area. Hopefully it doesn't come across as discouraging either, it sounds big but I really don't think it's impossible on any budget with a good, err, make that great leader.

Welp! My two cents. What so you guys think?

I think you hit the nail on the head! I've said the same before, too -- IT'S ALL IMPORTANT!

I do think it's possible to make a passably entertaining movie in which not every aspect of production is solid. Heck, that's pretty much how I'd describe my first feature. I think it's a fun movie, and I'm proud of it, but it's certainly not great, nor is it the quality of film I aspire to make. Paul, I'm with you 100% -- in order to call a film "great", it truly needs to have high-quality EVERYTHING!

 

[MiniJamesW]

You are thinking like a filmmaker, not Average Joe and Normal Jane. And you are completely misunderstanding my point. Moving or not moving the camera, the use of montage, etc, etc, etc. should be "invisible" to the audience while they are watching the film; if it does not pull the audience out of the film while they are watching it, it is invisible. All the general public notices is when something is technically wrong or when something is very poorly done (like bad acting) that pulls the audience out of the filmic illusion created by the director and his/her team. Average Joe and Normal Jane don't walk out of the theatre discussing shot angles, the color grading or the sound design; they talk about the characters, or the action sequences, or what made them laugh, or, if the filmmaker is lucky, the emotions evoked.

That's what I mean by "invisible." The techniques are irrelevant to the general audience member. The reality or unreality of the film is immaterial to the discussion. Average Joe and Normal Jane don't sit in the theatre thinking "what a great tracking shot" or "what a cool sound effect." They are there to be entertained. Was the audience completely immersed in the film? Were they entertained? That is your job as an artist, to entertain the audience. The best films leave me sitting in the theatre with my mouth a little open, having forgotten my popcorn and my Coke; all I care about is "what happens next?" Anything that pulls me out of the film destroys the experience; the process of the making of the film is no longer invisible.

Oh yeah, then I agree the average public should just enjoy the film as its going on and not be distracted.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

it's like asking, whats more important water or air?
guess what you're dead without either

The most important aspect of filmmaking is being able to bring all aspects of a film together to make something fantastic.

Well said gentlemen.

It's all important, there is no 'one key thing' to a great film -- nor should there be. It's vision and execution, and everything else in between.

Disagree. You can have bad sound and out of focus images, but if the audience is cheering and clapping when the credits roll you've succeeded.

I agree in theory, but can you think of any films where the sound is bad or the images are out of focus? I honestly can't remember ever coming away from a cinema thinking "man that film sounded terrible" or "why was it all out of focus".

Clearly those elements are vitally important, because they are always (at least to the average punter, I don't know what you audio experts think) done to a high standard.

As baoliun said:

Technically well made film should be expected. How often have you seen Hollywood film which had shit sound?