kubrick
- Thread starter sonnyboo
- Start date
I agree,
There's a lot of paper work, logistics and organisation in filmmaking. That's the bit most people don't consider and if you don't enjoy getting involved in the noncreative part you'll probably just get bored and give up.
If you're prepared to do it all yourself, it's amazing how cheaply you can make a professional looking (and sounding) film.
Steven
There's a lot of paper work, logistics and organisation in filmmaking. That's the bit most people don't consider and if you don't enjoy getting involved in the noncreative part you'll probably just get bored and give up.
If you're prepared to do it all yourself, it's amazing how cheaply you can make a professional looking (and sounding) film.
Steven
My own quote that I use often, especially in refuting the false expectations set by "10 MINUTE FILM SCHOOL", is that yes ANYONE can make a movie, but not everyone can make a GOOD movie.
My point from quoting Stanley was that he had an understanding of how the cinematic world eventually got to this point decades before it did. Also, many people have the opinion that they shouldn't start with short films and dive right in with features, and to have Stanley Kubrick's quote back up my personal belief that shorts are a great training ground, that helps a lot. That's not to say that those who choose to start with features are wrong, but it's great to have your own opinion validated by one of the masters. Also, paperwork does suck, but it's necessary.
Well I have the luxury of watching a group that dove in and made their first film a feature. That didn't work, it didn't go anywhere. Now they are making a short, we'll see where this goes. I think it is a perfect example of what you are saying... the fundamentals of going through the paces to put something on screen is a lot different than carrying off a vision that will captivate audiences. Maybe this was a slightly self-defeating quote from Kubrick, de-mystifying the process? I've heard several very well known industry vets say in the past "to the average public, there is a certain mystique to what goes on behind the camera, and we have to protect that. Not because they shouldn't know, but because they don't want to hear how unglamorous it is to make a film from scratch." and Im not sure but I think I read in craig gore's book how when giving interviews its best to put a smile on and talk about how fun it is to work on films and how great it was to work with everyone, not how hard of work it was. Not that I necessarily buy into it, but it is interesting this mystique of what it takes to make a film, and then beyond that what it takes to make a professional, and even successful one. But thats the business we're in right? Fooling the public?
He's not actually saying anything that revolutionary or out of context of the time it was said. (I'm assuming it was pre-digital)
When I first came into the industry the conventional wisdom was:
1) Make a couple of cheap digital shorts to get the basic production techniques down. (when I say digital I mean digibeta, not DV) - budget in the $5K region
2) Make a 35mm or S16mm showcase short to enter into festivals -- budget in the $20K region
3) Use the exposure from that film short and your feature script, to land your 35mm first feature budget. -- budget in the $1M region
Pre-digital the indie scene was largely ex-film school people who had had access to cheap materials and equipment during their studies -- there weren't the same kind of opportunities for endlessly noodling around by yourself (despite the whole 8mm thing).
The thing that has really changed everything, and not necessarily for the better, is the increase in quality of cheap digital formats and the cheapness of professional post production.
Although I'd be the first to encourage people to get out there and learn by their mistakes, I actually think that people entering the scene now are missing out on studying the craft (prior to production) that was a necessary aspect of production when you had to find the money to shoot on either professional video or film.
I'm a massive advocate of lo/no budget film making -- but what people tend to forget is that you need greater skill and knowledge levels to hack it in that arena than you do in conventional production. that kind of knowledge means hitting the books as well as throwing every half assed script idea you have into production.
When I first came into the industry the conventional wisdom was:
1) Make a couple of cheap digital shorts to get the basic production techniques down. (when I say digital I mean digibeta, not DV) - budget in the $5K region
2) Make a 35mm or S16mm showcase short to enter into festivals -- budget in the $20K region
3) Use the exposure from that film short and your feature script, to land your 35mm first feature budget. -- budget in the $1M region
Pre-digital the indie scene was largely ex-film school people who had had access to cheap materials and equipment during their studies -- there weren't the same kind of opportunities for endlessly noodling around by yourself (despite the whole 8mm thing).
The thing that has really changed everything, and not necessarily for the better, is the increase in quality of cheap digital formats and the cheapness of professional post production.
Although I'd be the first to encourage people to get out there and learn by their mistakes, I actually think that people entering the scene now are missing out on studying the craft (prior to production) that was a necessary aspect of production when you had to find the money to shoot on either professional video or film.
I'm a massive advocate of lo/no budget film making -- but what people tend to forget is that you need greater skill and knowledge levels to hack it in that arena than you do in conventional production. that kind of knowledge means hitting the books as well as throwing every half assed script idea you have into production.
I dove in with a feature...but considered it purely a learning experience...like doing 10 shorts all at once. I learned more than that in a shorter amount of time due to the enormity of the project. Shorts are much less daunting to me now than they were when I had just done a couple of shorts. 
Bottom line...time behind a camera is learning time that won't be had with out being behind a camera.
Classrooms can tell you all the fundamentals of lighting a set, setting your exposure, camera angles and blocking your actors, but when the time crunch hits and you need the shot done, on set experience is the stuff that pays off.
at any budget
Bottom line...time behind a camera is learning time that won't be had with out being behind a camera.Classrooms can tell you all the fundamentals of lighting a set, setting your exposure, camera angles and blocking your actors, but when the time crunch hits and you need the shot done, on set experience is the stuff that pays off.
at any budget
I have no talent. If I can make a movie, ANYONE can.
Here, kitty, kitty. You want the camera?
I identify with Kubrick a lot. He's a loner who's films never turned a profit. He's the renegade filmmaker that everyone wanted to be but no one wanted to be like him. He was the Orson Welles of the latter half of the 20th century.
I always wanted to direct just like Kubrick with those long twisting and turning sequences that went on forever, the wide angle shots with the wide angle lens on them, the flying fish-eye paranoia... It's just me if I had a staff.
We (Supergun Cinema) had made one short together, and then tried to do a feature. Needless to say the project fell apart, when after 3 months of filming the first two lines in the script, we had crappy footage of a car-chase/bike-chase/foot-chase, and then the director got a new camera. Now the footage wouldn't match (Hi8 to MiniDV). We shot a scene of dialogue (we were filming in sequence!) and then went back to shooting the second car/foot chase. We hit someone with a car, hit someone else with a radioactive clock, and then realized the script was too ambitious (we were planning on building a set).
So we went back and did a short. It went so well, we launched into another feature (Macbeth 3000). For the way we did it, it turned out alright. Not unbearable in the least (I'm biased to hate it). We got some exposure out of it though. Now I'm writing another feature. Since then I've done 5-10 shorts, plus a ton of PA gigs, a 2nd AD, a camera assistant, networking with the toronto film festival, and comedy network.
I think you've always got to have the big features on a burner back there, whether you're playing with shorts, or doing monkey work. Some people can dive right in and do the features, but for those with limited budgets, you can do shorts while planning for a feature, and then pull it off while you're in your groove.
So we went back and did a short. It went so well, we launched into another feature (Macbeth 3000). For the way we did it, it turned out alright. Not unbearable in the least (I'm biased to hate it). We got some exposure out of it though. Now I'm writing another feature. Since then I've done 5-10 shorts, plus a ton of PA gigs, a 2nd AD, a camera assistant, networking with the toronto film festival, and comedy network.
I think you've always got to have the big features on a burner back there, whether you're playing with shorts, or doing monkey work. Some people can dive right in and do the features, but for those with limited budgets, you can do shorts while planning for a feature, and then pull it off while you're in your groove.
I've been thinking about the whole short/feature thing.
I've never been a big fan of shorts, as a viewer. So, they've always held little interest to me as a film maker. The shorts I have made have always been "camera tests" and opportunities to get a feel for production.
What I know for sure is that making shorts does NOT prepare a film maker for making a feature. Specifically from a writing point of view -- the skills and knowledge needed are completely different and a successful short film maker goes into their first feature no better off than a bad one.
The only way to learn about features is to make your first feature and then dissect it. Figure out where you went wrong in your story telling and then learn how to write better scripts.
The production side of film making is laughably simple -- and something you CAN learn from making shorts -- but features are a whole other ball game.
My current philosophy is that people should make ultra low budget digital features (anything more than a $1000 is a waste of money) and use that as a learning tool -- not only that, they should stay at that budget level until they are able to create a financially successful film.
Most of my energies at present are going into researching and writing about this idea -- $1000 Speilberg whilst I develop a new project on these principles and also continue to write spec scripts.
I've never been a big fan of shorts, as a viewer. So, they've always held little interest to me as a film maker. The shorts I have made have always been "camera tests" and opportunities to get a feel for production.
What I know for sure is that making shorts does NOT prepare a film maker for making a feature. Specifically from a writing point of view -- the skills and knowledge needed are completely different and a successful short film maker goes into their first feature no better off than a bad one.
The only way to learn about features is to make your first feature and then dissect it. Figure out where you went wrong in your story telling and then learn how to write better scripts.
The production side of film making is laughably simple -- and something you CAN learn from making shorts -- but features are a whole other ball game.
My current philosophy is that people should make ultra low budget digital features (anything more than a $1000 is a waste of money) and use that as a learning tool -- not only that, they should stay at that budget level until they are able to create a financially successful film.
Most of my energies at present are going into researching and writing about this idea -- $1000 Speilberg whilst I develop a new project on these principles and also continue to write spec scripts.
I have to say that I go more on budget and complexity than time length.
My first film is going to be feature length(ish) at about 60 mins.
However I have to admit that I've been doing tonnes of test footage. Mini shorts in themselves, which include 'test scenes' created simply to test equipment, lighting, the look of props, locations and help prepare my amateur cast and crew.
I have written a couple of shorts but when I cost them up they were going to be more expensive than the feature. I very rarely watch shorts (there are exceptions). They always seem only of interest to film people, with little mass market appeal.
For me the lure of film making to is story telling. Limiting myself to 15 mins seems a pointless parameter.
Steven
My first film is going to be feature length(ish) at about 60 mins.
However I have to admit that I've been doing tonnes of test footage. Mini shorts in themselves, which include 'test scenes' created simply to test equipment, lighting, the look of props, locations and help prepare my amateur cast and crew.
I have written a couple of shorts but when I cost them up they were going to be more expensive than the feature. I very rarely watch shorts (there are exceptions). They always seem only of interest to film people, with little mass market appeal.
For me the lure of film making to is story telling. Limiting myself to 15 mins seems a pointless parameter.
Steven
Last edited:
Before you rush into production, you might want to ask yourself if there is another thirty minutes in that 60 minute script -- because although 60 minutes is technically a feature, it's going to be almost impossible to get distribution for it -- simply because by and large distributors are looking for that magic 90 minutes.
Not only that, at 60 minutes you're also locking yourself out of the short market.
With a 60 minute script, you've really got look at either expanding out to 90 or cutting back to 15 -- of which, cutting back to 15 is probably the wisest -- because most scripts are pretty flabby and it's better to have a tight 15 than a turgid 90.
To be honest, 60 mins is how long the test script reading took, dialogue with very limited descriptive narative. It's going to be shot against some rather dramatic backdrops (which took me ages to get permission for). I imagine that the film itself will be closer to 90 mins. It's not exactly going to be fast paced.
But thanks for the 'heads-up', I'll bear that in mind.
Steven
But thanks for the 'heads-up', I'll bear that in mind.
Steven
Thanks for reviving this thread.
The email prompt it generated has reminded me to get back involved with indietalk, which was invaluable when I was first starting with film making (though I'm still an amateur).
I'm a bit embarrassed by my earlier comments in this thread considering I've spent the last two years creating a short film!
http://judgeminty.blogspot.com/
The email prompt it generated has reminded me to get back involved with indietalk, which was invaluable when I was first starting with film making (though I'm still an amateur).
I'm a bit embarrassed by my earlier comments in this thread considering I've spent the last two years creating a short film!
http://judgeminty.blogspot.com/
Sonny thanks for bringing this thread to life again.
I have to agree. Stanley Kubrick was ahead of his time and still is ahead of the times. I don't think there is any movie out there that even challenges 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nothing comes close and nothing will in my opinion. Kubrick was able to do with film what no man will be able to do!
I have to agree. Stanley Kubrick was ahead of his time and still is ahead of the times. I don't think there is any movie out there that even challenges 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nothing comes close and nothing will in my opinion. Kubrick was able to do with film what no man will be able to do!
"2001" pissed me off. First, there was the movie about the monolith, and all the scientists are investigating it, and that movie was kind of interesting. I was definitely into it. Then, there was the movie about HAL, and it had pretty much nothing to do with the first movie about the monolith. The HAL movie was also pretty interesting. I was into it. But then, we have this weird acid-trip sequence, with a shitty screen-saver for what felt like an eternity, and then the old-dude keeps seeing an older version of himself, and then the baby's in space. WTF?!
If you're somebody who enjoys heavy symbolism like this, hey -- more power to ya. We each like different stuff, and that's fine. It ain't my cup of tea.
"Clockwork Orange" looks pretty sweet, though. I'm ashamed to say I still haven't seen it.
If you're somebody who enjoys heavy symbolism like this, hey -- more power to ya. We each like different stuff, and that's fine. It ain't my cup of tea.
"Clockwork Orange" looks pretty sweet, though. I'm ashamed to say I still haven't seen it.
As a former, and fairly successful, musician I have found that hard work is what makes it fun. The endless hours of practicing, listening, more practicing, programming, more practicing, prepping gear and more practicing - although boring sometimes and excruciatingly frustrating at other times - made for a very enjoyable, and most times trouble free, time on stage and in the studio. Now that I do audio post it's a little different; it is boring, exciting, frustrating and fulfilling by turns. The end result is a feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment. Hard work can be fun.
And that's the point; 99% of the yahoos out there don't spend the time improving their skill set and doing the proper preparation to make their time on the set enjoyable and turn out a solid project. Most see only the glamour of filmmaking and not the hard work.
I really enjoyed "2001: A Space Odyssey" (I first saw it when it came out) but, as you said, each to his own taste. "A Clockwork Orange" is also a terrific film. Their are huge differences between them, despite the fact that both were based on novels. "2001" is the visualization of a very complex novel which was hugely popular at the time, so the audience had a reference point from which to interpret the film. "Clockwork" was almost the reverse; it brought the novel to the audience in a fairly straight interpretation. The book became hugely popular after the film came out.
2001 was and is an amazing piece of work and i have to agree with Opus when he says there is nothing else like it.
i could talk abt it forever but just since Cracker mentioned the end, lemme say i was psychologically terrified when he went from room to room and saw older versions of himself. The monolith appearing again and the music reaching its crescendo gave me shivers and i was left mind blown.
i could talk abt it forever but just since Cracker mentioned the end, lemme say i was psychologically terrified when he went from room to room and saw older versions of himself. The monolith appearing again and the music reaching its crescendo gave me shivers and i was left mind blown.
It's all about MAN'S EVOLUTION. From the very first segment to that star baby scene. Not only is it about our evolutionary leap, but it's about our evolutionary leap being monitored by a higher being. Which is where the black monolith comes into play. It was intentionally buried under the moons surface by these intelligent beings. It was a dormant device waiting to be discovered by another form of live intelligent enough to do so.
The whole movie is genius. Kubricks use of structure is untouchable!
The whole movie is genius. Kubricks use of structure is untouchable!