C'mon ROC, you know as well as I do that it is the rare director even in Hollywood that includes the sound team during the preproduction process, much less the indie filmmaker to whom it is even more important as it would ultimately save money in the long run.
Mumblecore
- Thread starter NicklausLouis
- Start date
Agreed, but I have to assume you've never seen a dogme film, because similiarities between mumblecore and dogme95 are clearly there, the only difference really are the people.
Mumblecore is all about: you only need a camera, some people and a story to make a film.
Dogme95 was about exactly the same thing, the only difference was, since all participants were professional filmmakers, they had to make sure that everyone had the same preconditions and they did this by creating "dogmas".
That's the main idea, whether the marketing aspect had been considered when they "wrote" this thing I don't know, but they certainly benefited from the attention they got.
Last edited:
You have assumed correctly. If there's one worth watching, please enlighten me. Cuz in my opinion, that's the real difference. One group of filmmakers followed a particular method because of some nonsense. Another group followed a particular method because that's all they had. Only the latter made anything worth watching, cuz they weren't so much interested in the method as they were in the story.
Yes, it is true, and I have stated many times, across many threads, that I know nothing of audio. So, it is not surprising that I mis-used the word "sound design". My bad. That doesn't change how EXTREMELY low-budget this movie is, and how it somehow bested SO MANY others that spent SO MUCH more on production.
Again, it's not that movies like this are an argument AGAINST good production value. It's an argument that if you don't have the ability to produce something truly professional, you can still tell one hell of a story.
mumblecore is not like all the other indie films. and independant film is making a movie for cheap and with little resources. mumblecore is like a sub-genre of indie. a lot of the filmmakers in the mumblecore movement are friends. they help each other make their movies. all the actors in the movies are friends, not professionals (maybe you could argue they are now, after the 'rise to fame'), they all pretty much use dv cams or something else 'cheap'.
most importantly- the stories are based on their lives. the films are cinematic interpretations of their own experiences. There is also a LOT of improvisation, mainly with the dialogue. (which should be pretty easy if their reliving a moment in their life)
so i'd say its sort of like dogma 95, but instead of 10 strict commandments (which they tend to break sometimes anyway) its more like they us natural stories, settings, characters, lighting, and such not because the rules say they have to, but because their limitations say they have to.
whoever said mumblecore is a stylistic choice, thats like saying atheism is a religion. theire stylistic choice is to have NO production style. they aren't TRYING to make it look like anything, they just don't want all that bs to interfere with their story.
not that i would necessarily make a 'mumblecore' movie, but i would defend it as a legitemate film movement all day. as well as show everyone how it really isnt just an 'indie' movie.
there is an issue of Filmmaker magazine that talks a lot about it with the Duplas brothers and some of the other directors. That's where i rememberd most of this information from.
most importantly- the stories are based on their lives. the films are cinematic interpretations of their own experiences. There is also a LOT of improvisation, mainly with the dialogue. (which should be pretty easy if their reliving a moment in their life)
so i'd say its sort of like dogma 95, but instead of 10 strict commandments (which they tend to break sometimes anyway) its more like they us natural stories, settings, characters, lighting, and such not because the rules say they have to, but because their limitations say they have to.
whoever said mumblecore is a stylistic choice, thats like saying atheism is a religion. theire stylistic choice is to have NO production style. they aren't TRYING to make it look like anything, they just don't want all that bs to interfere with their story.
not that i would necessarily make a 'mumblecore' movie, but i would defend it as a legitemate film movement all day. as well as show everyone how it really isnt just an 'indie' movie.
there is an issue of Filmmaker magazine that talks a lot about it with the Duplas brothers and some of the other directors. That's where i rememberd most of this information from.
I have no idea what this thread is about, but nobody better be trash talkin' on "Primer" I'll go all "Zensteve said something bad about Avatar's momma; Crackerfunk explodes" on ya'll. That movie is a freaking essay in no budget cerebral sci-fi.
j/k Great movie though.
Anyway, we need that smiley where it pops in through a door, gets a freaked out expression and slowly backs away. I'm sure whatever I could say has been said, at least twice. Except this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038890/
If you include the "Thanks" portion of the Puffy Chair credits, that's like twice as many people as on "Rome, Open City"
OG Mumblecore
Neo-Realism, Cinema Verite (different but similar). This isn't new territory. Actually that probably has been said - at least I hope so. Also sort of tangential. Admittedly Rossellini had quite a backdrop to work with - still.
CF:
I agree with you in essence about just doing it whatever your resources, but I come at it from a different direction I suppose. You really should check out some of the old school stuff though, I know you only like to see things in theaters, but with your love for this type of filming I think you'd really dig guys like De Sica, Visconti, some Rossellini.
Also Primary. See this anyway, just cause it's cool.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054205/
Stylistically influencing the whole "mumblecore" thing, arguably some level of influence on the dogma95 camp. Looking at that "thanks" list for Puffy Chair (imdb full cast and crew) makes me wonder how much of the notion of "one guy with a camera" is romanticized a bit for marketing buzz. (boom op, gaffer at the least on set) Obviously sparse resources and minimal budgets, but I'd bet there's as much (if not more) stylistic choice than limit resources involved.
j/k Great movie though.
Anyway, we need that smiley where it pops in through a door, gets a freaked out expression and slowly backs away. I'm sure whatever I could say has been said, at least twice. Except this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038890/
If you include the "Thanks" portion of the Puffy Chair credits, that's like twice as many people as on "Rome, Open City"
OG Mumblecore
Neo-Realism, Cinema Verite (different but similar). This isn't new territory. Actually that probably has been said - at least I hope so. Also sort of tangential. Admittedly Rossellini had quite a backdrop to work with - still.CF:
I agree with you in essence about just doing it whatever your resources, but I come at it from a different direction I suppose. You really should check out some of the old school stuff though, I know you only like to see things in theaters, but with your love for this type of filming I think you'd really dig guys like De Sica, Visconti, some Rossellini.
Also Primary. See this anyway, just cause it's cool.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054205/
Stylistically influencing the whole "mumblecore" thing, arguably some level of influence on the dogma95 camp. Looking at that "thanks" list for Puffy Chair (imdb full cast and crew) makes me wonder how much of the notion of "one guy with a camera" is romanticized a bit for marketing buzz. (boom op, gaffer at the least on set) Obviously sparse resources and minimal budgets, but I'd bet there's as much (if not more) stylistic choice than limit resources involved.
Last edited:
they are all worth watching. the ones that i have seen, and really enjoyed are
julien donkey-boy by harmony korine (my hero)
Dancer in the Dark by lars von trier
the celebration by thomas vinterberg (amazing)
primer is not mumblecore. neither is el mariachi. the puffy chair is. four eyed monsters is (although it wasnt very good)
not all indies are created equal, although we don't necessarily have to pigeon hole every single film into a specific catagory. some are just indie. but some are dogma, some are mumblecore, some are art.
i repeat. SOME are art. and not very many. that's an issue.
Yeah, but you also like dogma95, so like, whatever dude.
We'll agree to disagree on both and leave it at that.
We'll agree to disagree on both and leave it at that.
Yup. Don't get me wrong, I like people I disagree with - but this is the mumblecore thread and we shouldn't muck it up with a Primer stalemate. And yeah, it's not mumblecore which as nada to do with why I like it.
(Edit: use of smiley that post was an attempt to indicate a humorous delivery, hard to convey my tone of voice online sometimes.)
(Edit: use of smiley that post was an attempt to indicate a humorous delivery, hard to convey my tone of voice online sometimes.)
i wasn't intending on starting an arguement about primer, i'm not cracker funk. i was just putting my opinion out there, like you. someone else said something about if primer was mumblecore, i was responding to that.
but to stay on topic, are there any promising mumblecore films other than 'the puffy chair'? its the only one i've seen.
Has anyone seen 'hannah takes the stairs'? i heard good things.
but to stay on topic, are there any promising mumblecore films other than 'the puffy chair'? its the only one i've seen.
Has anyone seen 'hannah takes the stairs'? i heard good things.
that's actually the only dogma film I find worth watching, (maybe apart from Italian For Beginners)
Dancer In The Dark is not really a dogma film and apart from that extremely cheesy.
whether you consider something worth watching or not is above all a matter of taste.Cracker Funk said:
however, I find you're being unfair by judging a whole "film-movement" when you've never seen a dogma-film.
honestly i thought the breaking into musical part was kind of corny, but the rest was good. they do break some of the dogma rules, (diagetic music, violence, period piece) but i think it is still generally considered dogma.
You're right -- I'm the one who goes off-topic. My mistake.
I think this conversation is officially worn-out.
I once asked a friend what kind of music he likes to write, on his guitar. He so eloquently told me that, "It ain't about the little label they might put in front of your CD in the record store; it's about making music that sounds good to you."
That's the problem with this discussion. Too much labeling. I believe, very strongly, that the most successful filmmakers are just making movies that they would want to watch. Big budget, little-budget, we all use whatever resources we've got.
I think that comment is a bit inappropriate.
Fair enough. Like I said, my sense of humor sometimes doesn't translate online. I was actually trying to be funny while tossing that thought out there. And as much a reminder to myself to err on the side of brevity.
