Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Poke
Poke
filmmakers
- Thread starter Gavin
- Start date
I think that there are any number of serious flaws in your thesis.
Firstly, there is no evidence in either Kubrick's work or in critcal theory that suggests that Kubrick was a director who was fascinated by sexual tension. Eyes Wide Shut and Lolita dealt with sexual obssesion but where's the female muse in Dr Strangelove, 2001, The Shinning or Sparticus. Where does the Tony Curtis, Lawerence Olivier gay sex scene fit into your thesis? Kubrick is primarily known for his cold detachment and lack of communication with his actors.
The same applies to David Lynch, Lynch is more interested in the tension between how America sees itself and how it actually is. I've seen no critical readings that see him as sexually obssesed or a director who got into film making to "Get Girls."
Woody Allen is a sexually obessive director who has a often cast his current female partner as the lead in his films and visa versa, but it's the least interesting thing about him as a director. I mean here's a director who made a whole film based on Brecht (Shadows and Fog) and still managed to get international distribution. His work is complex and has many, many facets.
The relationship between director and actor is a complex one and the one thing I can guarantee is that it isn't about power. The relationship is about vunerability, trust and empathy. The primary tool a director uses in order to achieve this is listening. The director listens to the actor, not just when they are delivering lines but also in the process of forming the character, in between takes, over lunch and at the end of the day. Not only that, the director is the person who creates the safety for the actor to work, both physical and emotional. This level of emotional intimacy creates real and genuine friendships. My best freinds are usually people I've directed. These relationships are complex, deep and very, very real and at the same time has nothing at all to do with "getting my leg over."
Frankly I find the idea that "directors are powerful, women swoon at the feet of powerful men and therefore directors do this job to pull chicks" kind of insulting. Not just to women, but also to directors.
Directing films isn't a glamorous job. On set I work 18 hour days for three four weeks at a time, without a break. I've stood in freezing cold water in the middle of December at 3am in the morning just to complete a shoot. I've spent literally thousands of pounds suporting film projects, gone without new cars, holidays, to fund projects. This week I sold my house to pay off the debts on my last feature.
Film making isn't a game that boys play to get laid. It's a lifelong and frankly savage journey.
Firstly, there is no evidence in either Kubrick's work or in critcal theory that suggests that Kubrick was a director who was fascinated by sexual tension. Eyes Wide Shut and Lolita dealt with sexual obssesion but where's the female muse in Dr Strangelove, 2001, The Shinning or Sparticus. Where does the Tony Curtis, Lawerence Olivier gay sex scene fit into your thesis? Kubrick is primarily known for his cold detachment and lack of communication with his actors.
The same applies to David Lynch, Lynch is more interested in the tension between how America sees itself and how it actually is. I've seen no critical readings that see him as sexually obssesed or a director who got into film making to "Get Girls."
Woody Allen is a sexually obessive director who has a often cast his current female partner as the lead in his films and visa versa, but it's the least interesting thing about him as a director. I mean here's a director who made a whole film based on Brecht (Shadows and Fog) and still managed to get international distribution. His work is complex and has many, many facets.
The relationship between director and actor is a complex one and the one thing I can guarantee is that it isn't about power. The relationship is about vunerability, trust and empathy. The primary tool a director uses in order to achieve this is listening. The director listens to the actor, not just when they are delivering lines but also in the process of forming the character, in between takes, over lunch and at the end of the day. Not only that, the director is the person who creates the safety for the actor to work, both physical and emotional. This level of emotional intimacy creates real and genuine friendships. My best freinds are usually people I've directed. These relationships are complex, deep and very, very real and at the same time has nothing at all to do with "getting my leg over."
Frankly I find the idea that "directors are powerful, women swoon at the feet of powerful men and therefore directors do this job to pull chicks" kind of insulting. Not just to women, but also to directors.
Directing films isn't a glamorous job. On set I work 18 hour days for three four weeks at a time, without a break. I've stood in freezing cold water in the middle of December at 3am in the morning just to complete a shoot. I've spent literally thousands of pounds suporting film projects, gone without new cars, holidays, to fund projects. This week I sold my house to pay off the debts on my last feature.
Film making isn't a game that boys play to get laid. It's a lifelong and frankly savage journey.
T Shipley said:
that doesn't have to be about the opposite sex/power/sex at all.
To me, a Muse is creative spark personified. It's human nature to project that compulsion (psych) onto something of beauty.
I have to agree with Clive....your premise that 'men become Directors to get women' is at the best, stereotypical, at worst, insulting. Besides, everyone knows men become ROCK STARS to get women
I have to agree with Clive....your premise that 'men become Directors to get women' is at the best, stereotypical, at worst, insulting. Besides, everyone knows men become ROCK STARS to get women
i'd say that you don't project it onto something of beauty, but rather that you make that thing beauty by the projection.
i would just like to say also that the point that you have made about 'directors directing to get girls' (which Clive and Bird talk of) is valid ONLY if you consider it from the POV that we discussed above - that 'the girl' is a manifestation of the muse - or the desire that pushes one to create - the very basis of directing. in my opinion, that is the only defense that can be made of that position, and save it from being considered insulting.
i would just like to say also that the point that you have made about 'directors directing to get girls' (which Clive and Bird talk of) is valid ONLY if you consider it from the POV that we discussed above - that 'the girl' is a manifestation of the muse - or the desire that pushes one to create - the very basis of directing. in my opinion, that is the only defense that can be made of that position, and save it from being considered insulting.
Last edited:
I think some directors do seek the power, not the artistic merit or satisfaction of filmming. I've heard many young, flashy, Hollywood directors talk about "scoring chicks." So I don't think Gavin's theory is entirely off. But I don't find the filmmakers he mentioned to be in that group.
Poke
Poke
But really, is this what directing has come to?
Is this what the world has come to?
Are we really just here for a quick lay, a spot of cash, commercial endorsements, pats on the back, recognition and eventually immortality through our egos?
I would like to think better of the world. Directors who embrace the above are hollow and... POOPY-HEADS!! It's not about that whole "image" thing. It's not about objectifying women and casting them to get down and dirty... Those are by-products of pop-culture, and I think, Gav, you need to turn off your TV, read a few books, watch a few "fringe" movies, and start looking at natural things. There is an insurmountable amount of beauty in life, and being a director is just one job where you are given the ability to capture some of that beauty and preserve it. It is a selfless act- not the preservation of oneself, but the preservation of what it is you are capturing.
If you score a chick on the side, it isn't the power, it's the beauty.
Is this what the world has come to?
Are we really just here for a quick lay, a spot of cash, commercial endorsements, pats on the back, recognition and eventually immortality through our egos?
I would like to think better of the world. Directors who embrace the above are hollow and... POOPY-HEADS!! It's not about that whole "image" thing. It's not about objectifying women and casting them to get down and dirty... Those are by-products of pop-culture, and I think, Gav, you need to turn off your TV, read a few books, watch a few "fringe" movies, and start looking at natural things. There is an insurmountable amount of beauty in life, and being a director is just one job where you are given the ability to capture some of that beauty and preserve it. It is a selfless act- not the preservation of oneself, but the preservation of what it is you are capturing.
If you score a chick on the side, it isn't the power, it's the beauty.
whilst i see that we have both revealed ourselves to be silly niave ideal-living concept-eating youths, i would like to just say that i think it is a selfish act. firstly - there are alot more altruistic things we could all do with our time. 2nd - you are, as a director, judged according to what you direct. the beauty people try to capture is an effort to make themselves part of the beautiful on the some level.
oh, damn - there i go eating concepts that are not even on the plate again......
i'll see you in chat......
Nique Zoolio said:
I see it as both a selfish and unselfish act. Pursuing inspiration is on a certain level a personal quest, often times replacing what one gets from personal relationships... it's giving of yourself to a mass of people instead of one or a few. And you're not actually interacting with those who you are giving to, so there's a sense of self-fullfillment involved.
Real intimacy can sometimes be elusive to artists/writers/directors because they put so much of themselves into their work... or something like that.
i would just like to say that i am a, mostly, selfish person - i didn't mean to suggest i am anything but that.
on 'giving of yourself to a mass of people instead of one'
a) i don't think its right to quantify the worth of acts of intimacy on how many people are touched. i don't even think you've done that. i don't even know why i put that down. nevermind
b) the base of your giving to people is your desire. if you (hypothetical you, not having a go at anyone at all) didn't want to make movies, then you wouldn't - irrelevant of what a mass of people wanted from you.
i would like to make a comment on the real intimacy point here because it touches on a very important issue to me - but you'll have to excuse me, i am swimming in deadlines tonigth - so i'll post some day soon
on 'giving of yourself to a mass of people instead of one'
a) i don't think its right to quantify the worth of acts of intimacy on how many people are touched. i don't even think you've done that. i don't even know why i put that down. nevermind
b) the base of your giving to people is your desire. if you (hypothetical you, not having a go at anyone at all) didn't want to make movies, then you wouldn't - irrelevant of what a mass of people wanted from you.
i would like to make a comment on the real intimacy point here because it touches on a very important issue to me - but you'll have to excuse me, i am swimming in deadlines tonigth - so i'll post some day soon
How selfish Zool!! Making us wait!!
I am also selfish and possesive of my projects... But in a way, it allows me to release them from my body and put them into the world, thus appeasing other people.
It boils down to this- If you see an old person hobbling along the street, and you stop to help them, there are two factors at play. One, is your desire to do some good for someone else. The other is to do some good for someone else to feel better about yourself and get praise.
To deny the latter is untrue- everyone is selfish... it's in our nature.
The best we can do is embrace that nature, and apply it as often as possible for the purposes of good. If you are doing good for a selfish reason, you are still doing good... as long as you don't abuse the rewards.
I don't choose to be a filmmaker because I want to reap the benifits, I choose it because it is what I want to do. THAT, in itself, is selfish, because like someone else said, there are many other altruistic things I could be doing... like volunteering at the hospital.
Unfortunately, I was not constructed to do altruistic things... that's why I'm not at an old folks home forging pottery and talking about the golden days. So the best I can do within my own interests, is promote others to do altruistic things... starting to get it?
Essentially, I can use my selfishness to promote SELFLESSNESS!!
Does it negate my selfish nature? No. It enforces it, because I'm being selfish in the process.
So what's the whole point here?
I don't know.
But I'd like to say that a director has a vision, and whatever that vision is, it's HIS vision.
If his vision is one of money, fame and women, then maybe he will get it... but it probably will never live up to his standards... most things never do... so REALLY, the point is, if you are going to direct to score chicks and cash, then maybe you will, maybe you won't.. but chances are, people will see your selfish nature as NOT helping others, and you will be just another leaf in the wind.
I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but hopefully SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE gleaned SOMETHING from this rant.
I am also selfish and possesive of my projects... But in a way, it allows me to release them from my body and put them into the world, thus appeasing other people.
It boils down to this- If you see an old person hobbling along the street, and you stop to help them, there are two factors at play. One, is your desire to do some good for someone else. The other is to do some good for someone else to feel better about yourself and get praise.
To deny the latter is untrue- everyone is selfish... it's in our nature.
The best we can do is embrace that nature, and apply it as often as possible for the purposes of good. If you are doing good for a selfish reason, you are still doing good... as long as you don't abuse the rewards.
I don't choose to be a filmmaker because I want to reap the benifits, I choose it because it is what I want to do. THAT, in itself, is selfish, because like someone else said, there are many other altruistic things I could be doing... like volunteering at the hospital.
Unfortunately, I was not constructed to do altruistic things... that's why I'm not at an old folks home forging pottery and talking about the golden days. So the best I can do within my own interests, is promote others to do altruistic things... starting to get it?
Essentially, I can use my selfishness to promote SELFLESSNESS!!
Does it negate my selfish nature? No. It enforces it, because I'm being selfish in the process.
So what's the whole point here?
I don't know.
But I'd like to say that a director has a vision, and whatever that vision is, it's HIS vision.
If his vision is one of money, fame and women, then maybe he will get it... but it probably will never live up to his standards... most things never do... so REALLY, the point is, if you are going to direct to score chicks and cash, then maybe you will, maybe you won't.. but chances are, people will see your selfish nature as NOT helping others, and you will be just another leaf in the wind.
I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but hopefully SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE gleaned SOMETHING from this rant.
Spatula said:
i try to think of human nature as a vault.
take a piece of paper, write on it two words
INSIDE OUTSIDE
now - this is human nature.
you can be anything.
now take the pen/pencil and draw a circle around inside. that circle is your conditioning.
i don't want to get too involved in Sartre and all that existentialism stuff but to believe that there is a human nature is to hold that something decides the Nature of humans for us. i like to think that our nature is what we do/don't do - and by that we are free.
it is 5:30am!!!
Nique Zoolio said:
The proof of nature is that in similar instances, people react similarly. The gushing river that is history literally repeats itself, because there are some people who cannot help but take the course of nature.
I believe there is a chosen path, but only the weak and ignorant can follow it.
There are people that will follow the course of the river, and there are people who will get out and sit on the shore, watching the bodies float downstream.
Fate is an option for people with no motivation to have responsibility for thier actions.
This would be an interesting discussion for a general forum... I am currently writing a script dealing with responsibility for one's actions, and the question of "are we other-directed?". I think I may start a thread soon.
We are of free will simply because we can see right and wrong and choose wrong. That's free will. The ability and choice to be morons.
LOL.
Gavin, you are a beautiful person for sparking a thread starting with sleazy directors, and leading to the latest theories on existentialism. I get the feeling your posts have more than meets the eye... almost as if you were collecting and amassing data...
its ok Bird....me and D have got it sorted.....we've been plugging him a load of poop for three days now.... yes - i managed to turn my apparent foolishness into hidden genius, pick that one out Gav
yes - i managed to turn my apparent foolishness into hidden genius, pick that one out Gav
Last edited:
