Studios are not in the film biz anymore.

[MiniJamesW]

I disagree. During every good movie I've seen, I didn't focus on the cinematography. I don't care how good one element of a film is. I care about what the product is overall, and the talent that went behind combining those elements. All of my favorite films (Hunger, The Lives of Others, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Taxi Driver, etc.) had me so interested I forgot it was a film. I was sucked into the movie, and was so interested and pulled in by the characters and situations that I didn't notice great shots and good sound design techniques. I watched the film, and it did it's magic - entertain me.

Well if I don't notice great cinematography from a film then it's almost not worth watching for me. I think that it is because I am interested in the film that I decide to pay attention to cinematography and other aspects of the film. I do like being engaged in the story but I never feel that my appreciation of cinematography gets in the way of my appreciation of the overall film experience. Especially on repeat viewings I think noticing the elements of the film can enhance the experience greatly.

For certain films I like to just "enjoy the ride" but for most films that I watch, I like appreciating every element of the film that I can (esp. on the visual side). So far for me this has worked as most films that I enjoy give me intense enjoyment whether it is emotional or intellectual. Just watching a scene from In The Mood For Love brings me to tears because of the acting, cinematography, lighting, use of color, use of music, editing, use of slow motion, etc. and I notice this while watching the film but I still get strong emotions. For some films though, like The Cowboys directed by Mark Rydell I didn't think most elements of the film were particularly great though overall the film just worked for me in a visceral manner and provided a great experience.

I do appreciate looking at film as illusion or as "magic." However I feel that my appreciation of Ozu would be diminished if I didn't notice how he frames his shots or arranges his sets, and my appreciation of Orson Welles would be greatly diminished if I didn't notice how he moves the camera. I do think though that one needs to fall in love with the "magic" of film before even caring about this stuff though

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

I was going to write up a long post, but it seems that we watch films differently. Nevermind

 

[sfoster]

i agree with chimp. when i start noticing what went into the movie it takes away from the experience..

for example in the film the protector. there is an amazing sequence that is 3 minutes and 56 seconds where tony jaa fights an army of people without a single edit.

the first time i saw this film, about 2 minutes into that sequence i started feeling extremely anxious. i began questioning how long it was going to keep going without a cut and how many times they had to practice to get that sequence correct.. i just wanted it to end so i could relax

Personally i find knowing all the little in's and out's of films doesn't do much to enhance my appreciation on the first viewing. it's only if i want to keep watching a film over and over again when it comes into play

 

[MiniJamesW]

Haha yeah I think people can appreciate cinema in different ways so it's all good!

@sfoster I gotta watch that long take to appreciate the camerawork, fight choreography, etc.

I guess it makes sense that on first viewing one wants to keep the magic, actually ideally I would like to as well. However I don't get the chance to re-watch many films so I try to appreciate as much of the film elements as I can.

One thing I don't do is read up on the story of a film, the story has to be told to me by the film and it has to unfold naturally. This causes a lot of problems during the few times I watch films with friends or my parents. They ask me "what is it about?" and I respond "I don't know, the movie will tell us." The only problem about not knowing the story at all is when I watch a film like A Page Of Madness thinking its a conventional narrative film but realizing that mostly has no narrative at all.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Sure you say that there are no neolithic cave paintings that are "great" but then you mention Picasso and Da Vinci who are also 'old' painters.

Really? Compared to 40,000 year old cave art, 500 year old Da Vinci art is new and Picasso is positively contemporary!

Surely most people are more likely to appreciate Da Vinci than most contemporary painters. I've always found it that in the world of visual art and classical music it has been easier for casual audiences to appreciate older works.

This statement is not entirely true and even when it is, it's only true up to a point and not for the reasons you seem to be suggesting. For example, Mozart was more popular than the older Bach. The point at which composers became more difficult to appreciate by casual audiences was the point at which composers stopped composing for casual audiences! In the C20th, classical music became introverted, more interested in exploring it's own existence than in communicating with the public. With the exception of a few extremists and those involved in creating the performances, virtually no one loves contemporary classical music because contemporary classical music is not designed to be loved and it's often not even designed to be liked. It's no coincidence that as classical music became more introverted, less accessible and less relevant to the masses that popular music started it's meteoric rise, to fill the gap of artistically expressing and interacting with popular culture which classical music was no longer attempting fulfil.

Mozart is certainly more in demand than Stockhausen...

But you are comparing completely different things; a composer who created art to communicate with the public, and a researcher who experimented with sound and the underlying principles of music as art, who wasn't interested in communicating with the public. Those who came later, applied Stockhausen's experiments and technological advancements to creating art which was designed for the public and that music was indeed more "in demand" than Mozart!

...and most people I know prefer Da Vinci to Jackson Pollack.

Interesting you should choose Pollack for comparison, as Pollack's artistic technique was far more closely related to neolithic cave art than was Da Vinci's!

Of course I believe that culture, technology, and art are all intertwined, but I don't think they directly influence the quality of a work.

If they are intertwined, by definition they directly influence the quality! The question becomes how we personally define quality and our ability to recognise and appreciate it, which obviously becomes more difficult the further removed we are from the culture and the art which is aimed at it.

I don't judge the quality of a film based on the reaction of the casual observer. I don't think that Nosferatu became a bad film when it ceased to frighten audiences. The film didn't change, the audience did.

Absolutely! So to appreciate a film like Nosferatu we either have to somehow identify with it's target audience or understand the process of filmmaking, appreciate the artistry of it's time and it's importance to the history of filmmaking. In other words, I don't believe we should judge the quality of a film based on the reaction of the casual observer either! I believe we should judge a film by the reaction of it's target audience. However, because of the huge cost of blockbusters, it's likely that today's casual observer is also a member of the target audience of today's blockbuster but of course tomorrow's casual observer, yesterday's casual observer or a non-casual observer may not be.

Though I can't say most blockbusters have a lot of artistic merit (that I can appreciate).

Well, that's the point isn't it, what you are able to appreciate.

It seems you love film as an illusion, and you want your audience to completely buy into the illusion.

It's not that I love film as an illusion, film is an illusion! The perception that film exists as a single unified artform in it's own right is an illusion which defines the skill and artistry of the filmmaker. Without illusion you don't have film, you just have various other artforms all happening at the same time!

For a long time almost all filmmakers shared your view but if you look at the French New Wave (esp. Jean-Luc Godard) you see filmmakers starting to break that illusion through their filmmaking styles.

As with other artforms you have different types of filmmaker. There are filmmakers, like Stockhausen with music, who are experimenting with certain aspects of the filmmaking process, we still call these experiments "films", just as we still call Stockhausen's compositions "music", but in many respects we really need a different term because experimenting with say the moving image is experimenting with just one of the artistic areas which comprises film rather than with the art of film itself.

I think that film viewers should be aware of cinematography, editing, lighting, sound, in order to appreciate film more.

No, that wouldn't make film viewers appreciate film more, it's just as likely to make them appreciate film less! What it would do is enable them to appreciate the filmmaking process more and therefore maybe appreciate those who make films more but not necessarily the films themselves more. Just as understanding how a magic trick is done, you might appreciate the skills of the illusionist more but some of the magic itself is likely to be lost in the process.

What kind of films do engage you? Both Nosferatu and Citizen Kane engaged me, so did Gravity and Avatar. I'm also not a casual film viewer so I can't even imagine myself not being engaged by any of these films.

I'm engaged in different ways, by different things and for different reasons. I can be engaged intellectually by analysing films like Nosferatu and Citizen Kane or I can be engaged by the entertainment value of some blockbusters, even though some of the illusion doesn't work so well for me. In fact, one of the ways I personally judge a film as "great" is if I find it difficult to analyse a film because the skill and artistry of the fimmaker keeps sucking me into the storytelling and I forget that I'm trying to analyse it!

I do think that your idea of evaluating films based on their target audiences and goals is pretty interesting, but I think it applies more to film reviewers (like those on Rotten Tomatoes) than cinephiles or film critics (the ones who analyze films rather than review them).

I agree that cinephiles can of course view films however they want, just as can the public, but not so film critics or filmmakers. When analysing film or indeed anything, you surely need to analyse in terms of what the subject of analysis is designed to do or achieve? Film critics tend to only analyse certain aspects of film while ignoring others, thereby missing at least some of the art which may be present and indeed therefore often missing the very essence of the art of filmmaking, which is the unified combination of the constituent arts. And if that's not bad enough, what they do bother to analyse is based on arbitrary definitions of quality which may have been arrived at from something entirely different, say from experience of photography or from old, art house or experimental films for example.

For example, if we were to analyse orchestral film music in terms of the classical orchestral world, we would generally find it to be superficial, simplistic, derivative tosh, outdated by a century or so. But of course, the aspiration of the highly skilled film score composer is primarily to further the artistic requirements of the film, the emotional impact of the target audience, rather than creating music which would be defined as "good" or "great" by the classical music establishment. BTW, this point is usually not fully appreciated by those trying to enter the world of film scoring or indeed often by filmmakers.

While it's not possible to be an expert in all the arts of filmmaking, which is why of course filmmaking is a teams endeavour, it is essential that a filmmaker understands how to employ and integrate those various arts in such a way as to engage their target audience, whoever their target audience may be. Blockbusters are particularly good at engaging a very large target audience so they should be of particular academic interest to all filmmakers, even those not aiming at the very largest target groups.

I don't think that blockbusters usually push the boundaries of cinema as artistic expression but they do push technological boundaries of cinema... it is the artistic use of the technology that is more important than the technology itself when the film is released.

Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why you think that blockbusters don't push artistic boundaries? Is it because blockbusters really don't push the boundaries of artistic expression or is it just that you are incapable of recognising and therefore of valuing how the boundaries are being pushed? Using your example of Transformers again; M. Bay wanted fluid, complex transformations, to create the impression of living emotional beings rather than just sentient machines. When ILM tried to render what had been designed it took 38 hours per frame and ILM had to upgrade their processing abilities. So yes, Transformers did push the technological boundaries of filmmaking but the technological advances were necessary ONLY because the artistic decisions required them! And, if the artistic decisions required advances in technology in order to be realised, then obviously the boundaries of artistic expression must have been pushed.

Now obviously you didn't recognise or appreciate these artistic decisions, the illusion and emotional response they were designed to elicit from it's target audience. Maybe that's because you are not a member of the target audience, maybe it's because you have a personal bias against CGI or maybe you have some other bias which prevented you from recognising or appreciating what was achieved artistically. But your personal ability to recognise or value certain types of artistic expression is a very different question from whether a film actually contains artistic expression or attempts to push certain artistic expression boundaries. I've just chosen one example of the CGI in Transformers but there were other examples in other artistic areas of it's filmmaking.

Don't worry about it, I'll make economically un-viable films.

If your films never make any money, how do you intend to continue funding and hopefully improving your filmmaking? I'm not implying it can't be done, just that it needs either considerable disposable personal wealth, a miracle or some particularly clever and/or innovative plan.

Trust me, if I made a Dolby mix for my film it wouldn't do any better than a good mono mix with my awful audio skills.

If your goal is to make theatrical films then this statement is patently untrue! How can a film with a mono mix do better than a film with a multi-channel mix when most cinemas can no longer even screen a film with a mono mix? This raises the question of why are mono mixes obsolete or more pertinently for the filmmaker, what potential artistic advantages and methods of expression are provided by multi-channel mixes which are so great as to make mono mixes completely obsolete? And as a filmmaker, should you not fully appreciate the answer to this question before dismissing multi-channel mixes?

You seem to have completely ignored the last part of my post where I said that cinema already had its timeless masterpieces the same way music has the works of Beethoven and Mozart... If Citizen Kane weren't timeless then there wouldn't be so much effort put into championing it for generation after generation, preserving it, re-releasing it, and so on.

It seems to me you are arguing against yourself! If Citizen Kane were timeless, why does it need any championing, let alone "so much effort put into championing", why can't it stand on it's own merit? Citizen Kane is worthy of being championed because it is a masterpiece but it needs championing precisely because it is NOT timeless!

Well if I don't notice great cinematography from a film then it's almost not worth watching for me. I think that it is because I am interested in the film that I decide to pay attention to cinematography and other aspects of the film.

From this answer it appears to me that you are not interested in film at all, instead you are interested in the processes of filmmaking and most specifically the art of cinematography, but film is not about the art of cinematography, film is the art of story telling, of which cinematography is only a part and on occasion a relatively insignificant part! If I notice great cinematography when watching (rather than analysing) a film, the chances are that it's probably not a particularly good film. Therefore, great cinematography IMO draws one into the story rather than drawing attention to itself and away from the story!

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

Really? Compared to 40,000 year old cave art, 500 year old Da Vinci art is new and Picasso is positively contemporary!



This statement is not entirely true and even when it is, it's only true up to a point and not for the reasons you seem to be suggesting. For example, Mozart was more popular than the older Bach. The point at which composers became more difficult to appreciate by casual audiences was the point at which composers stopped composing for casual audiences! In the C20th, classical music became introverted, more interested in exploring it's own existence than in communicating with the public. With the exception of a few extremists and those involved in creating the performances, virtually no one loves contemporary classical music because contemporary classical music is not designed to be loved and it's often not even designed to be liked. It's no coincidence that as classical music became more introverted, less accessible and less relevant to the masses that popular music started it's meteoric rise, to fill the gap of artistically expressing and interacting with popular culture which classical music was no longer attempting fulfil.



But you are comparing completely different things; a composer who created art to communicate with the public, and a researcher who experimented with sound and the underlying principles of music as art, who wasn't interested in communicating with the public. Those who came later, applied Stockhausen's experiments and technological advancements to creating art which was designed for the public and that music was indeed more "in demand" than Mozart!



Interesting you should choose Pollack for comparison, as Pollack's artistic technique was far more closely related to neolithic cave art than was Da Vinci's!



If they are intertwined, by definition they directly influence the quality! The question becomes how we personally define quality and our ability to recognise and appreciate it, which obviously becomes more difficult the further removed we are from the culture and the art which is aimed at it.



Absolutely! So to appreciate a film like Nosferatu we either have to somehow identify with it's target audience or understand the process of filmmaking, appreciate the artistry of it's time and it's importance to the history of filmmaking. In other words, I don't believe we should judge the quality of a film based on the reaction of the casual observer either! I believe we should judge a film by the reaction of it's target audience. However, because of the huge cost of blockbusters, it's likely that today's casual observer is also a member of the target audience of today's blockbuster but of course tomorrow's casual observer, yesterday's casual observer or a non-casual observer may not be.



Well, that's the point isn't it, what you are able to appreciate.



It's not that I love film as an illusion, film is an illusion! The perception that film exists as a single unified artform in it's own right is an illusion which defines the skill and artistry of the filmmaker. Without illusion you don't have film, you just have various other artforms all happening at the same time!



As with other artforms you have different types of filmmaker. There are filmmakers, like Stockhausen with music, who are experimenting with certain aspects of the filmmaking process, we still call these experiments "films", just as we still call Stockhausen's compositions "music", but in many respects we really need a different term because experimenting with say the moving image is experimenting with just one of the artistic areas which comprises film rather than with the art of film itself.



No, that wouldn't make film viewers appreciate film more, it's just as likely to make them appreciate film less! What it would do is enable them to appreciate the filmmaking process more and therefore maybe appreciate those who make films more but not necessarily the films themselves more. Just as understanding how a magic trick is done, you might appreciate the skills of the illusionist more but some of the magic itself is likely to be lost in the process.



I'm engaged in different ways, by different things and for different reasons. I can be engaged intellectually by analysing films like Nosferatu and Citizen Kane or I can be engaged by the entertainment value of some blockbusters, even though some of the illusion doesn't work so well for me. In fact, one of the ways I personally judge a film as "great" is if I find it difficult to analyse a film because the skill and artistry of the fimmaker keeps sucking me into the storytelling and I forget that I'm trying to analyse it!



I agree that cinephiles can of course view films however they want, just as can the public, but not so film critics or filmmakers. When analysing film or indeed anything, you surely need to analyse in terms of what the subject of analysis is designed to do or achieve? Film critics tend to only analyse certain aspects of film while ignoring others, thereby missing at least some of the art which may be present and indeed therefore often missing the very essence of the art of filmmaking, which is the unified combination of the constituent arts. And if that's not bad enough, what they do bother to analyse is based on arbitrary definitions of quality which may have been arrived at from something entirely different, say from experience of photography or from old, art house or experimental films for example.

For example, if we were to analyse orchestral film music in terms of the classical orchestral world, we would generally find it to be superficial, simplistic, derivative tosh, outdated by a century or so. But of course, the aspiration of the highly skilled film score composer is primarily to further the artistic requirements of the film, the emotional impact of the target audience, rather than creating music which would be defined as "good" or "great" by the classical music establishment. BTW, this point is usually not fully appreciated by those trying to enter the world of film scoring or indeed often by filmmakers.

While it's not possible to be an expert in all the arts of filmmaking, which is why of course filmmaking is a teams endeavour, it is essential that a filmmaker understands how to employ and integrate those various arts in such a way as to engage their target audience, whoever their target audience may be. Blockbusters are particularly good at engaging a very large target audience so they should be of particular academic interest to all filmmakers, even those not aiming at the very largest target groups.



Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why you think that blockbusters don't push artistic boundaries? Is it because blockbusters really don't push the boundaries of artistic expression or is it just that you are incapable of recognising and therefore of valuing how the boundaries are being pushed? Using your example of Transformers again; M. Bay wanted fluid, complex transformations, to create the impression of living emotional beings rather than just sentient machines. When ILM tried to render what had been designed it took 38 hours per frame and ILM had to upgrade their processing abilities. So yes, Transformers did push the technological boundaries of filmmaking but the technological advances were necessary ONLY because the artistic decisions required them! And, if the artistic decisions required advances in technology in order to be realised, then obviously the boundaries of artistic expression must have been pushed.

Now obviously you didn't recognise or appreciate these artistic decisions, the illusion and emotional response they were designed to elicit from it's target audience. Maybe that's because you are not a member of the target audience, maybe it's because you have a personal bias against CGI or maybe you have some other bias which prevented you from recognising or appreciating what was achieved artistically. But your personal ability to recognise or value certain types of artistic expression is a very different question from whether a film actually contains artistic expression or attempts to push certain artistic expression boundaries. I've just chosen one example of the CGI in Transformers but there were other examples in other artistic areas of it's filmmaking.



If your films never make any money, how do you intend to continue funding and hopefully improving your filmmaking? I'm not implying it can't be done, just that it needs either considerable disposable personal wealth, a miracle or some particularly clever and/or innovative plan.



If your goal is to make theatrical films then this statement is patently untrue! How can a film with a mono mix do better than a film with a multi-channel mix when most cinemas can no longer even screen a film with a mono mix? This raises the question of why are mono mixes obsolete or more pertinently for the filmmaker, what potential artistic advantages and methods of expression are provided by multi-channel mixes which are so great as to make mono mixes completely obsolete? And as a filmmaker, should you not fully appreciate the answer to this question before dismissing multi-channel mixes?



It seems to me you are arguing against yourself! If Citizen Kane were timeless, why does it need any championing, let alone "so much effort put into championing", why can't it stand on it's own merit? Citizen Kane is worthy of being championed because it is a masterpiece but it needs championing precisely because it is NOT timeless!



From this answer it appears to me that you are not interested in film at all, instead you are interested in the processes of filmmaking and most specifically the art of cinematography, but film is not about the art of cinematography, film is the art of story telling, of which cinematography is only a part and on occasion a relatively insignificant part! If I notice great cinematography when watching (rather than analysing) a film, the chances are that it's probably not a particularly good film. Therefore, great cinematography IMO draws one into the story rather than drawing attention to itself and away from the story!

G

I see there is still a lot we disagree with and yet you still ignore the fact that "bad" cinematic experiences such as Citizen Kane, foreign films, "silent" films, and many black and white films are still being screened every year and are only increasing in their popularity. I still don't see why you can't admit that this cinema is becoming like classical music, an artistic form that appeals to a niche audience and succeeds in pleasing it.

When I was referring to Da Vinci and Picasso, I was trying to get the point across that you didn't mention a contemporary artist who is working today. Instead you mentioned recognized masters.

I agree that classical music began to grow more and more introverted within the 20th Century and it popular music began to replace it within popular culture. However, do you think that classical music as an art form is less valuable now that it has become introverted? Also, can't there be a form of film that is introverted?

Okay if the Stockhausen and Mozart comparison doesn't work for you, how about Ligeti or Penderecki or Terry Riley? I don't think there are few composers from ANY era that are in more demand than Mozart and certainly not any 20th and 21st century composers. I don't even think Stravinsky was in more demand than Mozart. I may be wrong though, you do know more about classical music than I do.

Again when I'm talking about culture, technology, and art all I am saying is that a film that is older is not inherently worse because our culture and technology has changed. I don't see how that argument is invalid. Do you think that every single piece of music released this year is superior to Mozart's music? Do you think that every time a new film comes out it is superior to the films that came out years before? If so, then I can see why we disagree a lot.

Well I guess we agree there, we should evaluate films according to their target audience. However, I am not going to watch films or praise films that I personally don't like even if they achieve their effect on their target audience. I would much rather recommend those films to the audiences who will appreciate them.

Film is illusion, but filmmakers have shown time and time again that it can be so much more. I personally disagree with you that by noticing cinematography, lighting, use of music, sound, set design, etc. my appreciation for film is diminishing. I don't have any basis for this, just personal experience. Before I noticed these things I watched films a lot less often and didn't care for them much at all. The visuals themselves speak to me, so does the motion. I do suppose I lose some appreciation of the "magic" but I don't care because there is more behind the magic to me.

I guess I disagree, I think that film should be able to encompass Michael Bay, Jean-Luc Godard, Bela Tarr, Spielberg, and everyone. Same with music, Stockhausen is making music whether it is a sound experiment or not. However, we should try to distinguish different types of filmmakers, that is important. If you go into a Godard film expecting a blockbuster you will be disappointed and vice versa.

It's good to be engaged in a lot of films, however, I disagree that the only kind of film appreciation is being sucked into the story. You "watch" a movie so what you see has to be interesting in order for it to be a good movie, otherwise you might as well read a book or listen to someone tell a story.

Now I have a better understanding of your evaluation of the way film critics and filmmakers judge film. I actually agree with that, for example there are rock critics and classical music critics and if you evaluate rock music the way you evaluate classical music then it will seem like awful music and vice versa. However, I think that it critics who are passionate about Hollywood films should be the critics for those films, in the same way that a classical music critic doesn't usually analyze rock music. I don't want David Bordwell analyzing films he feels are not worth analyzing, but if there are scholars who feel Transformers is worth analyzing we should support their efforts. With regards to filmmakers, I think they/we should learn as much as we can from all filmmakers. I do watch some films that I feel are not very good, I just don't watch them as often and not for the same reasons.

I sure don't appreciate the artistic value of Transformers, and I'm not sure I even want to. If Transformers (or many other Hollywood blockbusters) represented cinema at its finest I'd be listening to a lot more music and reading a lot more books instead of watching films. Michael Bay did not make Transformers for artistic purposes either. A critic can make a case for Michael Bay's films and then I'll take a second look but for now I find that there are many more interesting directors making films all over the world who's work I'd rather watch.

All I was trying to say is that I'll probably be making films for a smaller audience. Other directors do it, I'll learn how they do it. I'm not sure how a film like The Wayward Cloud got funding, but that's part of why I'm studying film. Not every film has to be "commercially viable" in the way a Hollywood film is.

With my mono and surround sound comparison the only point I was trying to get across is that the only thing that matters is how technology is being used. Of course we should all be mixing in surround sound by now, but it's important to remember that it's how we mix in surround sound that's most important.

Maybe I used the wrong word by saying "champion." What I meant is that Citizen Kane is praised generation after generation because it is so timeless. If it wasn't a timeless film it'd be long forgotten (although there are other reasons a film can be forgotten).

I can't say I appreciate you saying that I'm not really interested in film. If I wasn't interested in film I wouldn't be trying to watch it all the time, spending the little money I have to buy films, read about it all the time, and making films whenever I can. I disagree that film is "the art of storytelling" if film was just storytelling then there is no point in cinematography or sound, we can just gather around telling stories or reading a book. Cinema has many aspects to it that can and should be appreciated IMO. When I notice cinematography it is because it's outstanding NOT because it is distracting. Not every filmmaker subscribes to the Old Hollywood (and current) thought of invisible cuts and invisible camera. Story is one aspect of film just as cinematography, sound, lighting, music, dialogue, etc. are. However, I don't tell people that all they appreciate is storytelling and not film. Also, if cinematography was so insignificant than viewers should just turn off the screen and appreciate the storytelling. Cinematography is essential for every film and downright necessary for "silent" films.

Cinema is the art of the moving image, the definition is very basic for me. The reason I have that definition is because without the moving image there is no movie but without any other aspect its still a movie. Are non-narrative films not cinema? It's not a perfect definition because many other mediums now use moving images but I don't consider any of them to be art forms (with the exception of video art by guys like Nam June Paik). I don't see why story should be more appreciated than cinematography or any other aspect of film, I think ALL of them should be appreciated because cinema is a synthesis of the arts. I think it's better to say that we appreciate cinema in different ways rather than say I appreciate only the "processes of filmmaking." Besides, I think only people who are interested in cinema are those who also become interested in the processes of filmmaking. I don't want you to get the idea that I only appreciate individual aspects of cinema though. The reason that Yasujiro Ozu is my favorite filmmaker is because of his insights and how he shares them through the medium (which includes story, cinematography, mise-en-scene, acting, etc.) not because of one individual aspect (even though I also appreciate them). I feel the same way about every filmmaker I love, it's how they put everything together for something meaningful and/or entertaining.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

In general, I think we are more in agreement than in disagreement but there are a number of factual inaccuracies, non sequiturs or other logical fallacies and differences of opinion which appear to me to be mostly based on a lack of objectivity:

...you still ignore the fact that "bad" cinematic experiences such as Citizen Kane, foreign films, "silent" films, and many black and white films are still being screened every year and are only increasing in their popularity.

Popularity is increasing relative to when? Certainly not from the point in time when they were originally released. Advances in technology means there are far more people involved or getting involved in film making and far more film courses and film students than there ever has been. I wonder how much of the recent increase in popularity (relative to say 20 years ago) is not in fact an increase in popularity but an increase in people studying Citizen Kane, I wonder how many would pay to see it again in a cinema purely out of enjoyment of the cinematic experience?

Film is illusion, but filmmakers have shown time and time again that it can be so much more.

In my opinion film cannot be more, and any attempt to make it more actually makes it less! For film to be an artform in it's own right it has to be greater than the sum of it's parts. Creating the illusion that a film is greater than the sum of it's parts is (for me) what defines the art of film and what separates it from all the individual filmmaking arts which are arts in their own right.

I guess I disagree, I think that film should be able to encompass Michael Bay, Jean-Luc Godard, Bela Tarr, Spielberg, and everyone. Same with music, Stockhausen is making music whether it is a sound experiment or not.

I'm not sure what I've said or how you've interpreted what I said, which makes you think I disagree with this?

Now I have a better understanding of your evaluation of the way film critics and filmmakers judge film. I actually agree with that, for example there are rock critics and classical music critics and if you evaluate rock music the way you evaluate classical music then it will seem like awful music and vice versa.

That's partially what I mean but not exactly. Most classical music critics seem more interested in proving how knowledgeable and intellectual they are by discussing say Mozart's structure and form, the harmonic progression and resolution, melody construction and orchestration, all in terms of the advancement and history of the art, rather than in Mozart's own terms of entertaining his audiences. In other words it's a matter of the ignorance or even wilful ignorance of some/most critics. I for one would quite like to see an honest classical music critic critique a great piece of rock music without any snobbery or elitism, purely in terms of how the music is designed to create responses in it's target audience.

I sure don't appreciate the artistic value of Transformers, and I'm not sure I even want to. If Transformers (or many other Hollywood blockbusters) represented cinema at its finest I'd be listening to a lot more music and reading a lot more books instead of watching films.

Transformers unquestionably represents certain aspects of cinema (of it's day) at it's finest, as indeed do many, if not the vast majority, of blockbusters. They may not be aspects that you appreciate but not even wanting to appreciate those other aspects strongly indicates an interest in just certain film arts rather than in film itself.

Not every film has to be "commercially viable" in the way a Hollywood film is.

Blockbusters are the most commercially viable of all films. For this reason alone, if no other, there are valuable lessons to be learned from blockbusters which apply to all films aiming for any form of commercial viability.

With my mono and surround sound comparison the only point I was trying to get across is that the only thing that matters is how technology is being used.

This and most of your previous statements on technology in film is a non sequitur logical fallacy. For example we could race Sebastian Vettel in a 1950's F1 car against my grandmother in a modern F1 car and the winner would be Vettel. From this we could conclude that advances in F1 car are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is the driver. However, this too would be a logical fallacy because if you raced Vettel in 1950's F1 car against Vettel in today's F1 car, the Vettel in today's F1 car would make Vettel in the 1950's car look like a pedestrian! So while a great mono mix will be better than a crap surround mix, a great surround mix is in a different league to a great mono mix, a good surround mix is in a different league to a good mono mix and a crap surround mix is just crap, as is a crap mono mix. This is why mono is now an obsolete commercial film format (as is a 1950's F1 car).

Maybe I used the wrong word by saying "champion." What I meant is that Citizen Kane is praised generation after generation because it is so timeless. If it wasn't a timeless film it'd be long forgotten (although there are other reasons a film can be forgotten).

But it is long forgotten by the vast majority and that's why it is not timeless! The reason it's remembered by some is because it's a masterpiece (of it's day) and instrumental in the evolution of film. We seem to be going round in circles on this one now.

If I wasn't interested in film I wouldn't be trying to watch it all the time, spending the little money I have to buy films, read about it all the time, and making films whenever I can.

You don't necessarily have to be interested in film to do all this, you only need to be interested in one or more of the arts which comprise film. Your answers seem to indicate that while you may have some understanding and appreciation of film as it's own artform, your focus is primarily towards the visuals and even more specifically towards the cinematography aspect of the visuals.

I disagree that film is "the art of storytelling" if film was just storytelling then there is no point in cinematography or sound, we can just gather around telling stories or reading a book. Cinema has many aspects to it that can and should be appreciated IMO.

There is no point to cinematography or sound, except in terms of the film itself. IMO, to an audience, there should be no aspects of cinema except the film. As filmmakers we need to understand and appreciate all the various aspects but we should always be aiming towards creating the illusion for the audience of a film (a single art), and NOT just a collection of simultaneous individual arts.

I've be speaking in terms of narrative films (as I've mentioned previously) in which case film is very much the art of story telling. Although all films (and indeed all art) is at it's most fundamental, a method of communication and therefore much (though not all) of what I have said is applicable to all film, not just narrative film. If all the arts are just a method of communication why do we need all the arts? Because they all communicate differently, a piece of music about say a river can elicit different and more poignant emotions than say a painting which may find it easier to express other factual and emotional aspects of the river, which would be different again to how we might describe the river in literature or indeed using the language of mathematics. All these different methods of communication and arts exist because none of them are capable of perfectly expressing everything, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. This is why I previously described film as the most sophisticated story telling art, because it combines technology, spoken language and a number of different arts to provide the most comprehensive method of communication currently possible.

When I notice cinematography it is because it's outstanding NOT because it is distracting.

If the cinematography is "outstanding" then by definition it is "standing out" from the other filmmaking arts and is drawing attention to itself. While this might be a good thing for certain moments of certain films, as a general rule it would be a distraction from the film itself. However, someone with a particular interest in cinematography would likely already be distracted to a certain extent and therefore wouldn't perceive it as a distraction but more as an enhancement.

Cinema is the art of the moving image, the definition is very basic for me.

If this statement were true, then the art of cinema would ONLY be the art of cinematography. Yet cinema was only the art of cinematography for it's very first few years. Cinema very quickly added music, then sound effects, then synchronised sound and dialogue. Cinema as just the art of the moving image died about 100 years ago!

The reason I have that definition is because without the moving image there is no movie but without any other aspect its still a movie.

No, given just a moving image most would describe it as just a form of moving visual art, many people (including you) might call it video art, some might call it CCTV but not many would call it a movie. At best they would call it a movie with the sound turned off, just as they would describe a film's soundtrack on it's own as a movie with the picture turned off.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that a significant part of filmmaking regards what is outside the frame or invisible within the frame. For example, if film were just about the moving image, the famous shower scene in Psycho is the not quite so frightening story of someone threatening a shower curtain with a knife! There are countless other examples of course.

I'm certainly NOT saying that cinematography is unimportant to film, although on occasion it might be, just as on occasion sound or music might be. Cinematography might on occasion be the only important aspect, just as sound or music might be. I view cinematography as similar to a car engine; without an engine a car is useless, not really a car at all but it would be a non-sequitur to say or imply that a car engine is therefore a car.

I don't see why story should be more appreciated than cinematography or any other aspect of film, I think ALL of them should be appreciated because cinema is a synthesis of the arts.

Another non-sequitur type argument! It seems to me you've got this backwards. Filmmaking is the synthesis of the arts but a film is the result of that synthesis, not the act of synthesis itself. Therefore the constituent parts of the synthesis are largely irrelevant compared to the actual result. In narrative film the ultimate goal of all the constituent arts and the final synthesis result it to tell a story. The story itself is therefore not more important than any other aspect of the film, it's the telling of the story which trumps all!

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

In general, I think we are more in agreement than in disagreement but there are a number of factual inaccuracies, non sequiturs or other logical fallacies and differences of opinion which appear to me to be mostly based on a lack of objectivity:



Popularity is increasing relative to when? Certainly not from the point in time when they were originally released. Advances in technology means there are far more people involved or getting involved in film making and far more film courses and film students than there ever has been. I wonder how much of the recent increase in popularity (relative to say 20 years ago) is not in fact an increase in popularity but an increase in people studying Citizen Kane, I wonder how many would pay to see it again in a cinema purely out of enjoyment of the cinematic experience?

I'll be the first one to admit that I have a lack of objectivity. My life experiences, my knowledge, and my personal passion for cinema inform my discussion all the time and I don't pretend to be objective. I don't think my posts are as illogical or factually incorrect as you say they are. The fact is that older films and foreign films are available now more than ever with the advent of the internet (esp. its streaming services) and home video. One example is that I live in the Dominican Republic, if the internet did not exist I would not know about any films made before the 80's and films that are not made in Hollywood (or local films). I think that more people would pay to see Citizen Kane for pleasure than you think, I don't think everyone going to specialist cinemas like the Film Forum are watching these films to study them. Many (maybe even most) cinephiles love Citizen Kane, it wouldn't surprise me if they told me that watching it is a pleasurable experience for them. Now within the mainstream, I still think Citizen Kane has gotten a little more popular relative to previous generations because of its ranking on lists like the AFI list and Sight & Sound as well as populist critics like Roger Ebert introducing it to the general public.

In my opinion film cannot be more, and any attempt to make it more actually makes it less! For film to be an artform in it's own right it has to be greater than the sum of it's parts. Creating the illusion that a film is greater than the sum of it's parts is (for me) what defines the art of film and what separates it from all the individual filmmaking arts which are arts in their own right.

Maybe I'm saying it in the wrong way but, I don't think that all cinema has to offer is illusion. Several filmmakers have played with the medium in a way that is not trying to mimic reality in anyway for a long time now. We can even look at Sergei Eisenstein's work as breaking this notion of cinema as illusion that mimics reality. Of course the moving image itself is illusion, but I don't think cinema should try to hide its visual elements. I think Stanley Kubrick, Agnes Varda, Wong Kar Wai, Yasujiro Ozu and many other filmmakers make it clear (through their films) that their visuals are just as important as the stories that they tell.

I'm not sure what I've said or how you've interpreted what I said, which makes you think I disagree with this?

This is what I was responding to, I'm sorry I didn't know how to use the quoting function well:

As with other artforms you have different types of filmmaker. There are filmmakers, like Stockhausen with music, who are experimenting with certain aspects of the filmmaking process, we still call these experiments "films", just as we still call Stockhausen's compositions "music", but in many respects we really need a different term because experimenting with say the moving image is experimenting with just one of the artistic areas which comprises film rather than with the art of film itself.

That's partially what I mean but not exactly. Most classical music critics seem more interested in proving how knowledgeable and intellectual they are by discussing say Mozart's structure and form, the harmonic progression and resolution, melody construction and orchestration, all in terms of the advancement and history of the art, rather than in Mozart's own terms of entertaining his audiences. In other words it's a matter of the ignorance or even wilful ignorance of some/most critics. I for one would quite like to see an honest classical music critic critique a great piece of rock music without any snobbery or elitism, purely in terms of how the music is designed to create responses in it's target audience.

I think that it is important to analyze both the cultural effect/audience response of a work and the actual structure and form. But I think not enough critics judge music/film/art based on how it was designed for its audience. I'm not sure if I want critics who are not passionate about a kind of film or music to be analyzing it though, but I think it might be necessary if they want to achieve objectivity as critics.

Transformers unquestionably represents certain aspects of cinema (of it's day) at it's finest, as indeed do many, if not the vast majority, of blockbusters. They may not be aspects that you appreciate but not even wanting to appreciate those other aspects strongly indicates an interest in just certain film arts rather than in film itself.

But I don't appreciate the film at all, the film bored me even when I was 12 years old and it bores me today. Maybe the special effects and audio work is great, but I don't see the artistry in the storytelling.

Blockbusters are the most commercially viable of all films. For this reason alone, if no other, there are valuable lessons to be learned from blockbusters which apply to all films aiming for any form of commercial viability.

I agree that they should be studied, but I don't believe they are to be imitated if the filmmaker's goal is to create a more personal work of art.

So while a great mono mix will be better than a crap surround mix, a great surround mix is in a different league to a great mono mix, a good surround mix is in a different league to a good mono mix and a crap surround mix is just crap, as is a crap mono mix.

I agree with this, this is the only point I was trying to get across. I don't think I did a good job of making it clear that I think a good surround mix is in a different league to a great mono mix though. However, I believe that when watching an old film we shouldn't be expecting a great surround mix for obvious reasons.

But it is long forgotten by the vast majority and that's why it is not timeless! The reason it's remembered by some is because it's a masterpiece (of it's day) and instrumental in the evolution of film. We seem to be going round in circles on this one now.

I don't think that the vast majority's recognition is relevant when speaking of film as art. The majority of audiences don't recognize many masterpieces of literature, visual arts, and classical music either, many don't even recognize many masterpieces of popular music. Citizen Kane's dominance as "the greatest film of all-time" for over 70 years seems to prove its timelessness to me (obviously not within the mainstream though). If we're talking about mainstream audiences I don't think any film is timeless, mainstream audiences usually only watch films from their generation. Also, I think that Citizen Kane is a masterpiece not just for its day but today also. I don't see how the film is any worse today than it was in 1941 because it is the same film it was back then. Also it continues to inspire and delight cinephiles and filmmakers today. And this is just my opinion (which is shared by many others), I just think it is a great film with outstanding artistry.

You don't necessarily have to be interested in film to do all this, you only need to be interested in one or more of the arts which comprise film. Your answers seem to indicate that while you may have some understanding and appreciation of film as it's own artform, your focus is primarily towards the visuals and even more specifically towards the cinematography aspect of the visuals.

However, when you say that I don't appreciate film as its own art form you are speaking in your terms on what film as an art form is. I know that I am interested in film, at least within my idea of what "appreciating film" is. I don't see why you can't say that we appreciate cinema in different ways instead of saying I just don't appreciate film as its own art form.

There is no point to cinematography or sound, except in terms of the film itself. IMO, to an audience, there should be no aspects of cinema except the film. As filmmakers we need to understand and appreciate all the various aspects but we should always be aiming towards creating the illusion for the audience of a film (a single art), and NOT just a collection of simultaneous individual arts.

I agree with this but I don't see why cinematography and sound can't be appreciated while watching a film. The filmmakers choose to compose shots in certain ways and use different lenses for different reasons, once you start to notice that (and the other aspects of film) you start to appreciate film as an art form IMO. Before that you just enjoy or like a movie. I do think that cinema as just the film experience has to be what we aim towards but once we start appreciating cinema more deeply we begin to notice the artistry. Of course casual audiences should just watch a film and not think much, but as a cinephile I think it is important to appreciate everything. From my personal experience, gaining an understanding of film has made me love cinema more, I don't see why that is an invalid form of "appreciating cinema" as its own art form.

I've be speaking in terms of narrative films (as I've mentioned previously) in which case film is very much the art of story telling. Although all films (and indeed all art) is at it's most fundamental, a method of communication and therefore much (though not all) of what I have said is applicable to all film, not just narrative film. If all the arts are just a method of communication why do we need all the arts? Because they all communicate differently, a piece of music about say a river can elicit different and more poignant emotions than say a painting which may find it easier to express other factual and emotional aspects of the river, which would be different again to how we might describe the river in literature or indeed using the language of mathematics. All these different methods of communication and arts exist because none of them are capable of perfectly expressing everything, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. This is why I previously described film as the most sophisticated story telling art, because it combines technology, spoken language and a number of different arts to provide the most comprehensive method of communication currently possible.

I like how you described the arts here and I very much agree with it. However, I'd like to point out that the arts should not be reduced to a single statement (a moral, lesson, or theme) because what they communicate is unique to their medium. I don't think that films should communicate really basic messages that can be communicated much more effectively in different ways. Akira Kurosawa once said “If I wanted to deliver a message, I’d write a letter.” I think what Kurosawa is referring to is a basic message that casual audiences usually reduce cinema to.

If the cinematography is "outstanding" then by definition it is "standing out" from the other filmmaking arts and is drawing attention to itself. While this might be a good thing for certain moments of certain films, as a general rule it would be a distraction from the film itself. However, someone with a particular interest in cinematography would likely already be distracted to a certain extent and therefore wouldn't perceive it as a distraction but more as an enhancement.

By "outstanding" I meant "outstanding" relative to the cinematography in another film. I don't know about distractions, it's a part of the film so I enjoy it just like many enjoy the illusion. I perceive it as an enhancement, and you perceive it as a distraction. Outstanding cinematography is distracting for those who don't appreciate the visuals of a film.

If this statement were true, then the art of cinema would ONLY be the art of cinematography. Yet cinema was only the art of cinematography for it's very first few years. Cinema very quickly added music, then sound effects, then synchronised sound and dialogue. Cinema as just the art of the moving image died about 100 years ago!

My personal definition of cinema is only meant to be a more inclusive one than most people tend to think of. All I'm trying to say with it is that those first films are also cinema, and any film that lacks sound, story, actors, editing, etc. is still a film in my opinion. I'm saying that the moving image is the only REQUIRED element of a film. Would you say that Japanese silent films are not cinema because they have no soundtrack? I do think a soundtrack would enhance the experience of watching them for me (I know this esp. since I saw one with benshi narration), however even without the soundtrack they are still films!

No, given just a moving image most would describe it as just a form of moving visual art, many people (including you) might call it video art, some might call it CCTV but not many would call it a movie. At best they would call it a movie with the sound turned off, just as they would describe a film's soundtrack on it's own as a movie with the picture turned off.

LOL some might call it CCTV but they would be wrong IMO. There are films that exist without a soundtrack (unfortunately) but they are still films, there is no other way to accurately describe them. And I don't see why video art is not valid. LOL, I don't consider video art to be cinema but it still exists and I can't call it anything else but "video art."

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that a significant part of filmmaking regards what is outside the frame or invisible within the frame.

That's a really good point, and I actually did not ignore that intentionally. Offscreen space is very important in cinema, that is true. Again, my "definition" of cinema was just meant to be inclusive. I was not arguing that offscreen space is unimportant, or sound, or story, or anything. I was just saying that they are not REQUIRED elements of cinema. Although, I think offscreen space is required lol.

I'm certainly NOT saying that cinematography is unimportant to film, although on occasion it might be, just as on occasion sound or music might be. Cinematography might on occasion be the only important aspect, just as sound or music might be. I view cinematography as similar to a car engine; without an engine a car is useless, not really a car at all but it would be a non-sequitur to say or imply that a car engine is therefore a car.

Yeah but if you remove cinematography completely from a film, is it still cinema? I don't think it is. The artistry of cinematography may not be important in certain parts of a film (or even whole films IMO) but I think that cinematography itself must be present in a film in order for it to be considered cinema. I don't think that cinematography is the film, but cinematography is a necessary component of cinema. Again I'd like to stress that all other aspects of film are important, but my definition is inclusive because I believe that films without soundtracks are still cinema, same with non-narrative films, same with films that don't utilize editing.

In narrative film the ultimate goal of all the constituent arts and the final synthesis result it to tell a story. The story itself is therefore not more important than any other aspect of the film, it's the telling of the story which trumps all!

Yes but cinematography, sound, acting, editing, etc. are all necessary in the telling of the story and enhance it. Good cinematography, sound, acting, editing, dialogue, and more improves the film overall. I think that the telling of the story visually is what trumps all, because narrative film is the telling of a story through moving images. If a film tells a story without the visuals then it is not a narrative film at all. If a film tells a story without sound, it is still a narrative film (for example "silent" films and literally silent films).

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

While I sometimes nitpick and tear apart films, it's so that I can see how they created that illusion, and how I can use those elements in my film to create an equally (or at least I try) impressive illusion. Appreciation of the skill and technique involved isn't bad, although rarely do I like a film if SOME elements were good and other areas were lackluster. One of the things that I think are great about film is the ability to bring together all of the elements it takes to make a film.

 

[MiniJamesW]

While I sometimes nitpick and tear apart films, it's so that I can see how they created that illusion, and how I can use those elements in my film to create an equally (or at least I try) impressive illusion. Appreciation of the skill and technique involved isn't bad, although rarely do I like a film if SOME elements were good and other areas were lackluster. One of the things that I think are great about film is the ability to bring together all of the elements it takes to make a film.

Yeah I rarely like a film either if some elements are good while other areas are bad. The overall film has to impress me and engage me in order for me to like it and that requires every element in the film used to be excellent.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I'll be the first one to admit that I have a lack of objectivity. My life experiences, my knowledge, and my personal passion for cinema inform my discussion all the time and I don't pretend to be objective.

As a member of the viewing public we can of course have as subjective an opinion as we want and not even have to think about it. As filmmakers though we not only need to think about it but we need to develop far more objectivity because we need to be able to experience and appreciate the films we are making from the point of view of our target audience, rather than our own point of view. If we don't want to develop our objectivity or are unable to, the chances are that our films will not engage our target audience or in all likelihood any audience! None of this matters if we are only making films for our own enjoyment, it only becomes a serious concern when we start looking for any kind commercial return from our films.

Several filmmakers have played with the medium in a way that is not trying to mimic reality in anyway for a long time now.

I'm not talking about mimicking reality, I'm talking about creating the illusion of a reality, which maybe an everyday reality or it might be an entirely fantastical, surreal or highly subjective reality. If there is no reality of any type, then all you have is a collection of random film arts rather than a film.

As you've quoted him, Kubrik is (as is Orson Welles) a great example. Sure, much of the critical analysis of Kubrik is focused towards the cinematography but that does, to a very significant extent, belittle Kubrik's talent as a filmmaker! For example, Kubrik was also an innovative (and very demanding!) master when it came to the use of sound design, but even defining Kubrik in these terms is still missing the point because what made Kubrik such a great filmmaker was not his cinematography or his use of music and sound but how he combined them to create engaging realities, thereby making great films.

But I don't appreciate the film [Transformers] at all, the film bored me even when I was 12 years old and it bores me today. Maybe the special effects and audio work is great, but I don't see the artistry in the storytelling.

This is exactly my point! To you, Transformers is boring and you don't see the artistry in the storytelling. Yet to millions it was engaging and exciting, the exact opposite of boring. As a filmmaker, isn't it worth studying and appreciating how and why it was so engaging and exciting to so many other people, instead of just dismissing it because it was boring to you personally? Even if you want to make films of a different genre and/or for a different demographic, you are still going to have to make films which are on occasion exciting, or at the very least, not boring to your target audience. Transformers maybe a particularly good film for you personally to study and appreciate, specifically because you found it boring when so many others did not! In trying to understand why it was not boring to so many others and in appreciating how Bay employed the film crafts to achieve this, you will very probably learn something you didn't know about generating and maintaining excitement, and about audience involvement and the cinematic experience in general. And, because blockbusters have a very wide appeal, it's more than likely that some of what you learn from studying Transformers would be applicable to your own filmmaking. Unless of course, as a filmmaker, you don't consider it important to have as good an understanding as possible of how to make your films "not boring"?

I agree that they should be studied, but I don't believe they are to be imitated if the filmmaker's goal is to create a more personal work of art.

Trying to imitate a modern blockbuster is futile, unless you are deliberately making one of those low budget spoofs. I'm not talking about imitating, I'm talking about fundamental principles of good filmmaking, principles which apply to all commercial filmmaking, for example: The filmmaking artistry to create pace and energy, provide a cinematic experience and keeping the audience on the edge of their seats. While you are probably not going to be making any sci-fi action thrillers any time soon, you will need to create a cinematic experience and you will at least once in a while have to generate some; excitement, action, suspense or thrills.

...I think a good surround mix is in a different league to a great mono mix though. However, I believe that when watching an old film we shouldn't be expecting a great surround mix for obvious reasons.

Almost everyone pays to go to the cinema for a good cinematic experience and a good surround mix has been an integral part of that cinematic experience for over 30 years. Audiences in general either do not know how to set their cinematic experience expectations back by 60 years or even if they able, they don't want to. There is an extremely tiny number of people who can, and these are mostly people who have a particular interest in the history of some of filmmaking arts.

I don't see how the film is any worse today than it was in 1941 because it is the same film it was back then.

No, it's an entirely different film to what it was back then! Citizen Kane was an innovative, cutting edge cinematic experience to the audiences of it's day. This is of course no longer the case, largely because it was so influential to later filmmakers.

I don't see why cinematography and sound can't be appreciated while watching a film. The filmmakers choose to compose shots in certain ways and use different lenses for different reasons....

No they don't, they all do it for exactly the same reason! Namely; to communicate something, to get some kind of emotional response. If instead of the intended emotional response, the audience respond with the intellectual act of appreciating one or more of the film crafts, then the filmmaker has to some significant degree failed!

By "outstanding" I meant "outstanding" relative to the cinematography in another film. I don't know about distractions, it's a part of the film so I enjoy it just like many enjoy the illusion. I perceive it as an enhancement, and you perceive it as a distraction.

Exactly! "Outstanding" is a comparative term, so either one is comparing the cinematography to the cinematography in other films or one is comparing the cinematography to the other arts in the same film. Either way, one is involved in the conscious act of making a comparison rather than being involved in the film itself!

Outstanding cinematography is distracting for those who don't appreciate the visuals of a film.

Again, exactly my point. People don't go to the cinema to appreciate the cinematography, they go to the cinema for a cinematic experience. By "people" I don't just mean mainstream audiences but virtually all the niche demographics as well. The only niche demographic this statement doesn't include would be photographers, photography students, some filmmakers and many critics but even quite a few of those expect a cinematic experience beyond just outstanding cinematography!

There are films that exist without a soundtrack (unfortunately) but they are still films, there is no other way to accurately describe them.

Yes there is and you have used the term yourself, "video art".

I believe that films without soundtracks are still cinema, same with non-narrative films, same with films that don't utilize editing.

If a cinematic film can have: No soundtrack, no narrative and no editing, what is the difference between cinematic film and a live CCTV feed, in your opinion?

Yes but cinematography, sound, acting, editing, etc. are all necessary in the telling of the story and enhance it. Good cinematography, sound, acting, editing, dialogue, and more improves the film overall. I think that the telling of the story visually is what trumps all, because narrative film is the telling of a story through moving images.

Despite you saying that film is a combination of arts, you always seem to fall back to statements like this which makes it clear that you believe cinematography is the basis of all film and everything else is almost a sort of icing, to "enhance" or "improve" the film.

You have quoted Citizen Kane quite a bit in our discussion, which I find particularly ironical being as it's such an excellent example/proof of the opposite of cinematography being the basis of film!! Yes, I know, film critics virtually always primarily focus on Citizen Kane's cinematography; the camera angles and movement, the lighting, in-frame movement, depth of focus, blocking, the editing and transitions, blah, blah, blah. This though is exactly what I meant earlier, that film critics tend to focus on only certain of the filmmaking arts and often appear deliberately and completely ignorant of some of the other crafts. Crafts, which in fact are at least as (if not more) important to Citizen Kane (for example) than the cinematography! This ignorance highlights the danger, as a filmmaker, of trying to learn too much, taking too seriously or of being too influenced by the vast majority of film critics' pretentious ramblings!

G

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

If you (in general) want to be a filmmaker you can't just learn one aspect of the craft you need to learn every aspect of the craft. You need to be able to communicate to every department what it is you want and you cannot ignore one department over the other or put 50% effort towards catering to one department and 100% towards another because you are more interested in that department's role.

I think it's important to look at the films you hate as well as the ones you love because even in the ones you hate there may be some lessons you can learn to incorporate into your own film.

I believe that every aspect of filmmaking is important to the filmmaker. As for the audience some want a movie that looks beautiful in HD, others want to see special effects, others want to see their favorite actor, others are more interested in the music, others don't care if there's continuity errors, some tune out in the boring parts, some don't like movies without action in them.

What a filmmaker needs to do is utilize the skills of every department in crafting a film that makes sure that everything is the best it can be (continuity, sound, music, lighting, editing, cinematography, story, special effects etc) because once it's out of the filmmakers hands it becomes it's own beast and people take it or leave it depending on their own preferences.

 

[MiniJamesW]

As filmmakers though we not only need to think about it but we need to develop far more objectivity because we need to be able to experience and appreciate the films we are making from the point of view of our target audience, rather than our own point of view. If we don't want to develop our objectivity or are unable to, the chances are that our films will not engage our target audience or in all likelihood any audience! None of this matters if we are only making films for our own enjoyment, it only becomes a serious concern when we start looking for any kind commercial return from our films.

Yes, I agree but my target audience is not the kind of audience that watches Transformers. But yes we do have to understand our target audience in order to make our films engaging to them.

As you've quoted him, Kubrik is (as is Orson Welles) a great example. Sure, much of the critical analysis of Kubrik is focused towards the cinematography but that does, to a very significant extent, belittle Kubrik's talent as a filmmaker! For example, Kubrik was also an innovative (and very demanding!) master when it came to the use of sound design, but even defining Kubrik in these terms is still missing the point because what made Kubrik such a great filmmaker was not his cinematography or his use of music and sound but how he combined them to create engaging realities, thereby making great films.

I agree that it's the way he puts EVERYTHING (visuals, sound, story, etc.) that makes him a master filmmaker. I was just using him as an example to show that visuals can be equally important as "story." However, as you said before "storytelling" trumps all (which includes all the elements put together to make cinema).

This is exactly my point! To you, Transformers is boring and you don't see the artistry in the storytelling. Yet to millions it was engaging and exciting, the exact opposite of boring. As a filmmaker, isn't it worth studying and appreciating how and why it was so engaging and exciting to so many other people, instead of just dismissing it because it was boring to you personally?

It may be worth studying and appreciating in that way, however, isn't it more important to study films that appealed to my target audience and not the masses? I don't want to "bore" my audience, but most of my target audience was also bored by Transformers.

The filmmaking artistry to create pace and energy, provide a cinematic experience and keeping the audience on the edge of their seats.

It is important to learn this from films when you are making commercial films. I don't see why I can learn it from films that are not as horrible (IMO) as Transformers though.

Almost everyone pays to go to the cinema for a good cinematic experience and a good surround mix has been an integral part of that cinematic experience for over 30 years. Audiences in general either do not know how to set their cinematic experience expectations back by 60 years or even if they able, they don't want to. There is an extremely tiny number of people who can, and these are mostly people who have a particular interest in the history of some of filmmaking arts.

Well, the audiences that watch TCM and classic cinema in general are used to it. Just a niche audience of course. I want to make it clear though that I never meant to say that we should start mixing in mono, LOL.

No, it's an entirely different film to what it was back then! Citizen Kane was an innovative, cutting edge cinematic experience to the audiences of it's day. This is of course no longer the case, largely because it was so influential to later filmmakers.

To my knowledge, when I watch Citizen Kane today I am watching the same film that was made in 1941. Reactions to the film have changed but not the film itself. Back then, the film was hated by many. Later it was re-evaluated by critics (esp. in France) and has since maintained a status as "the greatest film ever made." Of course this film means nothing to most mainstream audiences though. I understand what you are saying though, but I think that the film is a masterpiece even though it's no longer cutting edge.

No they don't, they all do it for exactly the same reason! Namely; to communicate something, to get some kind of emotional response. If instead of the intended emotional response, the audience respond with the intellectual act of appreciating one or more of the film crafts, then the filmmaker has to some significant degree failed!

Sorry, I wrote the comment in a strange way. I meant that the shots were used to communicate DIFFERENT kinds of intellectual/emotional responses. Of course cinematography is trying to communicate something but different filmmakers have different ways of communicating.

Again, exactly my point. People don't go to the cinema to appreciate the cinematography, they go to the cinema for a cinematic experience. By "people" I don't just mean mainstream audiences but virtually all the niche demographics as well. The only niche demographic this statement doesn't include would be photographers, photography students, some filmmakers and many critics but even quite a few of those expect a cinematic experience beyond just outstanding cinematography!

I understand this, but I never said that audiences should only appreciate cinematography. Nor do I only watch a film to appreciate cinematography. I appreciate the film as a whole along with every aspect of it that I can, I think that any cinephile and critic should as well. Mainstream audiences don't care of course, but they don't usually appreciate a film deeply they just watch it once and enjoy the experience.

Yes there is and you have used the term yourself, "video art".

No, they are not video art. The silent Japanese films and Chinese films (which are the films I was mainly referring to) that no longer have a soundtrack are not video art, they are cinema. The reason they are cinema is that they were intended as cinematic experiences to be viewed at a movie theater and not at an art gallery. Also, they use obvious conventions of cinema (particularly narrative cinema) in their cinematography, storytelling, and use of actors. Most "films without soundtrack" are video art, but not all of them such as these silent films I'm referring to.

If a cinematic film can have: No soundtrack, no narrative and no editing, what is the difference between cinematic film and a live CCTV feed, in your opinion?

A cinematic film is intended for viewing at a movie theater and is made by filmmakers. The film is made by artists and not just random events happening that are being recorded. The film was made intentionally by one or more filmmakers while the CCTV feed has no creator and is just random.

Despite you saying that film is a combination of arts, you always seem to fall back to statements like this which makes it clear that you believe cinematography is the basis of all film and everything else is almost a sort of icing, to "enhance" or "improve" the film.

I don't see how this statement that I made, "I think that the telling of the story visually is what trumps all, because narrative film is the telling of a story through moving images" can be seen as incorrect. What sets narrative film apart from telling stories orally, on stage, or through writing is that it is told with moving images. There's no way to make a film without moving images, that was the only point I was getting across. I don't believe that everything else is only meant to "enhance." I feel that once you add elements like sound, special effects, or anything else then they become equally important. But I won't dislike a drama film because it doesn't have as much special effects as a blockbuster action film. Likewise I won't dislike a "silent" film just because it has no dialogue. Mainstream audiences need all of the elements all of the time, but I don't subscribe to their views.

You have quoted Citizen Kane quite a bit in our discussion, which I find particularly ironical being as it's such an excellent example/proof of the opposite of cinematography being the basis of film!!

I will still say that without cinematography there is no film at all just because the moving image is one of the only required elements of movies. Thankfully I am not one of those who view Citizen Kane only as a masterpiece of cinematography. The editing techniques were great, Welles' use of radio techniques in the film really enhanced the experience, the acting was superb, the screenplay is one of cinema's greatest IMO, and most importantly the overall storytelling was engaging and thought provoking for me. I don't think any of the Citizen Kane's elements are more important than its cinematography, but I do think that many of them are equal including the ones I mentioned already.

 

[MiniJamesW]

If you (in general) want to be a filmmaker you can't just learn one aspect of the craft you need to learn every aspect of the craft. You need to be able to communicate to every department what it is you want and you cannot ignore one department over the other or put 50% effort towards catering to one department and 100% towards another because you are more interested in that department's role.

I think it's important to look at the films you hate as well as the ones you love because even in the ones you hate there may be some lessons you can learn to incorporate into your own film.

I believe that every aspect of filmmaking is important to the filmmaker. As for the audience some want a movie that looks beautiful in HD, others want to see special effects, others want to see their favorite actor, others are more interested in the music, others don't care if there's continuity errors, some tune out in the boring parts, some don't like movies without action in them.

What a filmmaker needs to do is utilize the skills of every department in crafting a film that makes sure that everything is the best it can be (continuity, sound, music, lighting, editing, cinematography, story, special effects etc) because once it's out of the filmmakers hands it becomes it's own beast and people take it or leave it depending on their own preferences.

Great post! I agree with pretty much everything you said.

It is hard to look at films you hate and study them but it should be done LOL.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I don't see how this statement that I made, "I think that the telling of the story visually is what trumps all, because narrative film is the telling of a story through moving images" can be seen as incorrect. What sets narrative film apart from telling stories orally, on stage, or through writing is that it is told with moving images.

I know it seems like I'm harping on about this subject, a subject which appears self evident to you and indeed to many filmmakers but it's for this very reason that I am harping on about it! Here is why I feel it's important not to let this statement slide:

1. Every film has weaknesses and very low budget films have weaknesses in pretty much every area of their filmmaking. What most lo/no budget filmmakers tend to do is look at the weaknesses in these areas and try and do better next time; get/write a better script, improve cinematography, improve the acting, improve the organisation and efficiency of shooting, etc. While improving all these individual areas will obviously help, by focusing on the micro-details they often fail to see, or view objectively, the macro details. While there will certainly be say weaknesses in the cinematography, by far the biggest weakness common to virtually all no/lo budget films is the pacing and credibility; the shape of each scene and how each scene fits together to create the overall shape of the film, which is what creates and maintains interest and the credibility is what involves the audience. However good one gets at any of the individual film arts, without this pacing and credibility it's not possible to create a narrative film with enough appeal to be economically viable.

2. Your statement not only can be seen as incorrect but is incorrect, as it's based on a certain amount of factual inaccuracy with some non-sequitur argument thrown in! Using moving images as part of the story telling is not unique to cinematic film; we've already mentioned video art (which may or may not be narrative) but there's also music videos, museum and exhibition A/V presentations and even old technology like flip books. I agree that without at least some moving images you don't have cinema but it's a non-sequitur to say that therefore cinema is telling a story through moving images. A car designed without wheels is not a car but just having a set of wheels does not mean you've got a car (except in the vernacular). Sure, once upon a time cinema was only moving images and even when sound was added, cinema was still essentially moving image story telling, with sound and music.

3. Ironically, the film which more than any other is responsible for changing this old definition of cinema and evolving it beyond a mainly visual story telling art was Citizen Kane. What is most innovative and arguably most interesting about the cinematography in Citizen Kane is not how it tells the story, but how it doesn't! Much of the storytelling is deliberately obscured or is missing entirely from the visuals, we frequently do not see the facial expressions or body language of the characters because they are partly or entirely obscured by shadow, camera angles or have their backs towards the camera. What was so innovative about Citizen Kane is not what we see, it's what we don't see (!), the moving images do not try to tell the story but instead are employed as just another one of the available storytelling tools. Citizen Kane was almost not a film by the common concept of the term at the time, it was more a radio play with visualization. There is in fact a great deal which indie filmmakers today can learn from analysing Citizen Kane from the view point of it being a radio play with added visuals. While Orson Welles and his cast might have been new to film, they were certainly not new to storytelling, they were not only highly experienced and successful professionals, they were about the best in the world at what they did! This fact and it's ramifications are usually inexplicably glossed over or sometimes not even mentioned at all by film critics. While Citizen Kane had a great script, it was not the script which made the film great, it was the way the script was delivered. The old cliche, "it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it", was pushed to the limits of what was possible at the time and well beyond the limits previously attempted in film. The speed and pacing of the dialogue, the tone of the voices, the pronunciation, the syllabic emphasises, the shape of the sentences and finally the way they are mixed and balanced. All these often very subtle variations in dialogue delivery creates implications and perceptions which tell a far more detailed story than the dialogue itself.

While I believe it's a valuable exercise to analyse Citizen Kane from the point of view of it being primarily a radio play, to think of it only in these terms is as much of a mistake as thinking of it primarily in terms of it's visuals. Take away the visuals and the storytelling makes no sense as a radio play, take the radio play away and the visuals are no more than abstract visual art, it's only through the combination of the two that storytelling is achieved and a narrative film was created! In this respect, Citizen Kane can be described as the first modern film and is why the statement "narrative film is the telling of a story through moving images" is incorrect, or rather is only correct for films prior to the influence of Citizen Kane. Indeed, the majority of no and extremely micro budget films appear in many ways to be based more on filmmaking of the 1930s than of modern filmmaking for this very reason.

BTW, it was the advance of audio technology which made Citizen Kane possible in the first place, and of course further advances has made it obsolete for most, but the basic principle of film only existing as a fusion (rather than the cinematography trumping all) is still just as applicable.

...my target audience is not the kind of audience that watches Transformers

I'm not aware of any target demographic which will deliberately pay to be un-involved, un-engaged and bored by a film?! While the exact execution of what Bay did with Transformers might not be possible, appropriate or desirable for other genres or target audiences, many of the principles behind that execution are.

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

Sorry it took me a while to reply, I was just a bit busy recently and then it was Christmas! I hope you had a good holiday

1. Every film has weaknesses and very low budget films have weaknesses in pretty much every area of their filmmaking. What most lo/no budget filmmakers tend to do is look at the weaknesses in these areas and try and do better next time; get/write a better script, improve cinematography, improve the acting, improve the organisation and efficiency of shooting, etc. While improving all these individual areas will obviously help, by focusing on the micro-details they often fail to see, or view objectively, the macro details. While there will certainly be say weaknesses in the cinematography, by far the biggest weakness common to virtually all no/lo budget films is the pacing and credibility; the shape of each scene and how each scene fits together to create the overall shape of the film, which is what creates and maintains interest and the credibility is what involves the audience. However good one gets at any of the individual film arts, without this pacing and credibility it's not possible to create a narrative film with enough appeal to be economically viable.

I agree with this statement, I never said that cinematography or any one aspect of film is what makes me love film. In fact I mentioned how it was Ozu's vision, that made him my favorite director (along with all of my favorites) it's overall what they do. The first step to making a good movie is making it believable and engaging to the target audience then I feel the filmmaker can go further by making a film that is worthy of reflection and is thought-provoking.

Economically viable means something different to me, I've mentioned contemporary filmmakers that I admire and am studying. Filmmakers like Jia Zhangke, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Wong Kar-Wai, and Hong Sang-soo continue to make films year after year without compromising their vision in the way that Hollywood filmmakers do. Of course they work with smaller budgets and a smaller target audience, all I'm saying that it is this mode of filmmaking that appeals to me more than blockbuster or mainstream filmmaking.

Your statement not only can be seen as incorrect but is incorrect, as it's based on a certain amount of factual inaccuracy with some non-sequitur argument thrown in!

My statement simply isn't incorrect. Narrative film has to have a story told through moving images, without the moving images then you're just telling a story which can be orally or through writing.

Using moving images as part of the story telling is not unique to cinematic film; we've already mentioned video art (which may or may not be narrative) but there's also music videos, museum and exhibition A/V presentations and even old technology like flip books. I agree that without at least some moving images you don't have cinema but it's a non-sequitur to say that therefore cinema is telling a story through moving images. A car designed without wheels is not a car but just having a set of wheels does not mean you've got a car (except in the vernacular).

Again my statement was not intended to be a full definition of what cinema is but more of a guideline. If I were to want to make a better definition I would say this.

Narrative cinema is the telling of a story through moving images, primarily intended for screening at a movie theater. (I know that this definition has its flaws, there are direct-to-video films, as well as TV films)

This means that it isn't video art (since video art must be presented in a gallery setting), it's not an exhibition, a music video, or a flip book. I just don't think that all cinema is the car you are talking about. Narrative cinema (theoretically) can be just moving images that tell a story, without sound, without music, without even editing. It is not just theoretical though, my example of the silent Japanese and Chinese cinema backs it up along with the earliest films made. Again, I am not implying that sound is a lesser component of cinema, I'm just using a definition of cinema that is more inclusive in order to include the kinds of films that don't have any sound at all.

Sure, once upon a time cinema was only moving images and even when sound was added, cinema was still essentially moving image story telling, with sound and music.

But here we are defining "sound cinema" or "films that use sound." It is not including the earliest films made nor the exceptions such as silent Japanese cinema that I mentioned.

While Citizen Kane had a great script, it was not the script which made the film great, it was the way the script was delivered.

That's true, I believe that just about all great films are this way too though.

the moving images do not try to tell the story but instead are employed as just another one of the available storytelling tools.

Your insights on Citizen Kane are really interesting to read and make me want to re-watch the film in light of what you said. This comment though is exactly what I mean. Cinematography, sound, editing, all of them are storytelling tools in cinema. However, I don't think cinema needs to use all of the tools in the toolbox in order to be considered cinema. I think that cinematography (and off-screen space) as well as being intentionally presented in a cinematic format (generally a movie theater) are the only required elements for a film to be considered a movie. I'm not trying to say that the other tools are not important though. Once a director chooses to use a tool such as sound (which I think every contemporary director should use) he/she along with his/her crew must master its use. Same with editing or any other tool. I would say that contemporary film should just about always use sound, editing, music, etc. That doesn't mean they are essential though, because certain films prove that they are still cinema without using these tools.

take the radio play away and the visuals are no more than abstract visual art

This is true of Citizen Kane but not necessarily every film.

In this respect, Citizen Kane can be described as the first modern film and is why the statement "narrative film is the telling of a story through moving images" is incorrect, or rather is only correct for films prior to the influence of Citizen Kane.

You are describing modern films though. If we want to include ALL cinema, cinema prior to Citizen Kane and after it we must use an all-encompassing definition. My "guideline" encompasses films before Citizen Kane and after it.

BTW, it was the advance of audio technology which made Citizen Kane possible in the first place, and of course further advances has made it obsolete for most, but the basic principle of film only existing as a fusion (rather than the cinematography trumping all) is still just as applicable.

It's statements like this using terms like "obsolete" that make me strongly react to some of your comments. The reason why Citizen Kane is adored by many and always will be for many generations is because of its artistry, not its sound technology, not its innovative cinematography, not its controversial subject matter, none of that matters in the end. Terms like "obsolete" make cinema feel like a more ephemeral art form that should only be admired for its technological accomplishments. Cinema was initially viewed as an ephemeral art form for many years but critics in the 1950's and 1960's such as those of Cahiers du cinema thought otherwise, and so today many (including myself) have the view that great cinema should be admired (and preserved) in the same way that the plays of Shakespeare are, the way that the symphonies of Beethoven are, and the way that the great novelists and painters are appreciated. I find it ironic that cinema with its unique form of preserving "time" and "space" is seen as ephemeral by most people because they appreciate it only for its spectacle and escapism. For me the reason that cinema is appealing is not because it is merely escapism because it is a reflection of life. Although I admire Citizen Kane's accomplishments in cinematography and sound, what really stuck with me was what it had to say about humanity and how eloquently it said it, that is why its one of my favorite films.

I'm not aware of any target demographic which will deliberately pay to be un-involved, un-engaged and bored by a film?! While the exact execution of what Bay did with Transformers might not be possible, appropriate or desirable for other genres or target audiences, many of the principles behind that execution are.

I was un-involved, un-engaged, and bored by Transformers as were most people like me (essentially my target audience). All I said was "...my target audience is not the kind of audience that watches Transformers." I don't know how that means that I want my audience to be un-involved, un-engaged, or bored LOL. In fact, the perfect way to make my target audience feel bored is by making films similar to Transformers. I think every film tries to engage and involve its audience so I don't know why studying Transformers is better than studying any other movie. Wouldn't it be better if I studied films that succeeded in engaging my specific target audience? I don't want to seem narrow-minded though, I love a lot of different kinds of films. I even love many blockbusters, just not Transformers LOL.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Economically viable means something different to me

I'm using the term to mean films which stand a realistic chance of earning more money than they cost to make.

Narrative cinema is the telling of a story through moving images, primarily intended for screening at a movie theater...
Again, I am not implying that sound is a lesser component of cinema, I'm just using a definition of cinema that is more inclusive in order to include the kinds of films that don't have any sound at all.

But, these two statements are mutually exclusive! If a film is intended for screening in a movie theatre (to paying audiences) then it will need to have sound and to be economically viable it will need to have good sound. A movie theatre is a specially designed room which integrates a theatrical screen, a theatrical projector, a theatrical sound system and seating for an audience. If a film does not have sound designed for a theatrical sound system then the film is by definition not designed for a movie theatre!

But here we are defining "sound cinema" or "films that use sound."...
You are describing modern films though.

Absolutely correct. My advice/opinions are aimed at those making films today, not at already dead filmmakers who made films 100 years ago.

It's statements like this using terms like "obsolete" that make me strongly react to some of your comments. The reason why Citizen Kane is adored by many and always will be for many generations is because of its artistry, not its sound technology, not its innovative cinematography, not its controversial subject matter, none of that matters in the end. Terms like "obsolete" make cinema feel like a more ephemeral art form that should only be admired for its technological accomplishments.

My objection is to you separating what can't or shouldn't be separated. The artistry you are quoting only exists because of the technology. Without the camera, lighting and sound technology of it's day, Citizen Kane would be an utterly different film or wouldn't even exist. The "artistry" of filmmaking is in how the technology is used.

All I said was "...my target audience is not the kind of audience that watches Transformers." I don't know how that means that I want my audience to be un-involved, un-engaged, or bored LOL. In fact, the perfect way to make my target audience feel bored is by making films similar to Transformers.

I have specifically said more than once that I'm not talking about making a film similar to Transformers or even a film aimed at the same target audience as would like Transformers. I'm talking about basic principles of filmmaking for audience engagement, principles which can be applied to all film genres and all target audiences. Blockbusters like Transformers excel and epitomise numerous filmmaking tricks which engage an audience, Transformers also includes story elements, visual elements and audio elements which may turn off certain demographics (yours for example). So as a generality, I would advise identifying those elements which do not pertain to your specific target demographic and study, learn from, use and/or adapt those filmmaking tricks which apply to all demographics. Blockbusters like Transformers have the budget to not only employ the most talented filmmaking personnel but to provide the equipment, facilities and time for them to express their talent. To dismiss, or worse, to fail to even recognise all this talent simply because certain (albeit important to us personally) elements of the film were not aimed at our specific demographic is IMHO, arrogant and narrow minded. As I said, I'm not a fan of Transformers personally but I sure recognised and learnt from many of the excellent filmmaking talents and skills it contained!

G

 

[Michael Bergner]

i could not aggree on the statement about Steve Jobs destroyed the music industry.
Do I really need to buy a whole CD/Album just because i like one song?
And 20Cents is absurd... I don't know about others but on my iPad there is no song under 75Cents available.

However i totally aggree with him about the studios not being in the film biz anymore.
very interesting,
thanks for the share.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

i could not aggree on the statement about Steve Jobs destroyed the music industry.

I agree with you, Steve Jobs has not destroyed the music industry. He's literally decimated it and IMO ruined it but not destroyed it.

Do I really need to buy a whole CD/Album just because i like one song?

No you don't but then when applied on a global scale you need to appreciate the consequences of having this option, especially if you're going to comment on it publicly.

The old business model of having to buy albums from record companies certainly had it's flaws, for both the consumer and the artist but ultimately the job of the record companies was to make records (and then market and distribute them). Apple don't make anything (as far as music is concerned), they just provide a hosting and e-commerce platform for which they take a large slice. The consequence is that the record companies have either gone bust or are highly risk adverse and now have to produce "safe" recordings at the lowest possible cost rather than take risks producing the high quality recordings of new unheard of bands. The result is new bands have to pay for their own finished recordings (and marketing), which of course means much cheaper and poorer quality recordings and, production values have generally reduced in consequence (for the first time in history). As a further consequence, there's been a huge reduction in the number of high quality recording studios and the loss of the recording/production talent and knowledge they employed. Of course, most average consumers don't realise what they've lost; they don't realise how production values, popular music composition and artistry would have advanced and they don't realise what new music genres and new bands would have existed and influenced contemporary music culture. Many of the most famous and culturally important popular music bands/artists of the past would effectively not have existed (never have been heard of) had they attempted a musical career under the business model which now exists and that is largely due to Steve Jobs.

Except for those in the industry, it's difficult to appreciate what has been lost, what is being lost and what is still to be lost as the full consequences of the model which Steve Jobs started have not yet reached their final conclusion!

It may seem like the movie industry is deeply flawed and in need of a radical shake-up, especially for those trying to get into commercial filmmaking but if the movie industry follows the music industry the situation will actually end up a whole lot worse than it is now!!

G

 

[sfoster]

didn't the movie industry actually precede this ?
it used to be back in the day the theaters had to buy bundles of films just to get the one hit. they would buy like a half dozen films that they hadn't even seen yet.

kind of like when a consumer had to buy an album just to get the single