What do you think the main turnoff is for most people have toward "arthouse" movies?

[MiniJamesW]

Cinema is the art of the moving image. There were great films before sound made by guys like Carl Theodor Dreyer, Charlie Chaplin (who took a long time to move into sound), Buster Keaton, F.W. Murnau, D.W. Griffith, Fritz Lang, and many more. My opinion is that, anything you add to a film should be done well. So you can make a great film without sound, but if you add sound to your film it better be done with excellence. I feel the same way about fast cutting, camera movement, and slow contemplative films (if your film is "contemplative" give me something to contemplate).

Art films are infinitely more interesting than a blockbuster in my opinion. Its just like directorik said, people are more likely to visit Disney World than an art museum. I also compare it to classical music and pop music, most people would rather listen to Rihanna than Beethoven but that doesn't mean Rihanna is a greater artist. Similarly most people would prefer Michael Bay to Ingmar Bergman. I will say that there are a lot of awful art films though, and a lot of "entertainment" films that are (or should be) elevated to "art" status.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

if you have crap ingredients to start with, the chances of ending up with a very good cake are practically zero but my point is that just creating/sourcing good, great or even brilliant ingredients does not lead automatically to an even edible cake

I agree 100%. But many filmmakers fall into that "fix it in post" mentality. Post production is a very unappreciated and often overlooked by (indie) filmmakers, but it shouldn't be thought of as a solution to problems that occur during production. While shooting a film, you should get the best footage, audio, and performances you can, then clean, refine, and organize everything in post.

Again, this is not true ... or at least, not true enough! The actual strength of the story is largely irrelevant.

Really? A strong screenplay with a solid story is often where many indie films fail. Looking at films considered "the best", they often have strong concepts. Let's take a trip over to IMDb.

No. 1 - The Shawshank Redemption

Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency.

No. 2 - The Godfather

The aging patriarch of an organized crime dynasty transfers control of his clandestine empire to his reluctant son.

You can continue reading here: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

Let's look at some indie films though.

Here's what Google gives me:

https://www.google.com/#q=best+indie+films

No. 1 - Lost in Translation

A faded movie star and a neglected young wife form an unlikely bond after crossing paths in Tokyo.

No. 2 - Reservoir Dogs

After a simple jewelery heist goes terribly wrong, the surviving criminals begin to suspect that one of them is a police informant.

Now let's look at some very low budget (but successful) films.

Napoleon Dynamite

A listless and alienated teenager decides to help his new friend win the class presidency in their small western high school, while he must deal with his bizarre family life back home.

Mad Max

A vengeful Australian policeman sets out to avenge his partner, his wife and his son whom were murdered by a motorcycle gang in retaliation for the death of their leader.

Night of the Living Dead

A group of people hide from bloodthirsty zombies in a farmhouse.

Halloween

A psychotic murderer institutionalized since childhood for the murder of his sister, escapes and stalks a bookish teenage girl and her friends while his doctor chases him through the streets.

What do all these films have in common? They were all successful... either became famous as time went or grossed large amounts of money at the box office. Some of those examples aren't good either because of the star power/budget of the film.

When I go to the theater to see a film, I usually go because it either A) Is getting fantastic reviews or B) has an interesting plot. Now sure, I'm going to see high budget flicks. But the same goes with indie films as well. When I went to CIFF, most of the films were very low budget and had no recognizable names attached. I chose movies based upon what they were about. Did I miss out on amazing films? Probably. But the movies with the longest lines were those with the strongest stories.

Film is the art of story telling, so obviously you need a story to start with BUT, it's how you tell that story which defines a film rather than the story itself. There are loads of crap films based on the story of the bible, then there's Monty Python's Life of Brian, same story, completely different way of telling it! Again, this is because the story is only one of the raw ingredients. This may sound like an insignificant difference but it's not (!) because it changes the focus of filmmaking away from the script, cinematography or any other individual craft and focuses instead on how the story is delivered to the audience.

YES. A good story is important, but execution is very important as well. Cinematography and pretty much all other elements of making a film change the way an audience views a film though.

Also, Life of Brian has an interesting story.

Brian is born on the original Christmas, in the stable next door. He spends his life being mistaken for a messiah..

A man being mistaken for the messiah seems like a pretty interesting story to me.

Exactly, maybe we are on the same page after all!

Somewhat The audience doesn't care how we make our films! Just as long as we entertain them!

The danger of course (and the mistake made by most critics and many filmmakers) is that exactly what an audience experiences is manufactured and manipulated in post-production and is therefore not defined by only the script, the cinematography or even an acting performance.

G

Movies can be edited well, graded well, have good Foley, scored well, and have awesome VFX - but if the acting, story, cinematography, and sound is horrible - there's a 99.99% chance that the film will end up terrible. If the new film Gravity had weak performances and was shot terribly, I would have probably hated the film.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

While I do sincerely respect and like people involved with sound sometimes I hate how they always talk about how visuals are not important.


Yes , visuals don't make a film with bad story interesting to the audience ,but neither does the sound .

It's a mixture of everything .

YES! It's a mixture of everything.

Can you please point out even one single example in this thread, let alone "always", where I said that the visuals were not important or that they were less important than the sound?

G

I don't think Nikola meant that you and the other audio people on the forum don't think that visuals are important, but more so that film is a visual medium and is assisted by sound. Yes, sound is important, but like James pointed out in the following statement, cinema is the art of the moving image, and there have been great silent films. It's undeniable how important sound is. I've watched films with the sound turned down, or put to the soundtrack of the film - and the lack of audio made the experience less effective.

Cinema is the art of the moving image. There were great films before sound made by guys like Carl Theodor Dreyer, Charlie Chaplin (who took a long time to move into sound), Buster Keaton, F.W. Murnau, D.W. Griffith, Fritz Lang, and many more. My opinion is that, anything you add to a film should be done well. So you can make a great film without sound, but if you add sound to your film it better be done with excellence. I feel the same way about fast cutting, camera movement, and slow contemplative films (if your film is "contemplative" give me something to contemplate).

Art films are infinitely more interesting than a blockbuster in my opinion. Its just like directorik said, people are more likely to visit Disney World than an art museum. I also compare it to classical music and pop music, most people would rather listen to Rihanna than Beethoven but that doesn't mean Rihanna is a greater artist. Similarly most people would prefer Michael Bay to Ingmar Bergman. I will say that there are a lot of awful art films though, and a lot of "entertainment" films that are (or should be) elevated to "art" status.

Great post James.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Great post James.

Thanks

 

[mlesemann]

Movies can be edited well, graded well, have good Foley, scored well, and have awesome VFX - but if the acting, story, cinematography, and sound is horrible - there's a 99.99% chance that the film will end up terrible. If the new film Gravity had weak performances and was shot terribly, I would have probably hated the film.

Yes.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

My posts in this thread were in response to the OP, who said that he didn't understand how audiences could be bored by films which had "FANTASTIC cinematography" and why art-house films often had high scores from critics and low scores from the general viewing public. The reason, IMHO is precisely because of this statement:

Cinema is the art of the moving image.

In it's very earliest days this statement might have been true of cinema but it stopped being true about a hundred years ago! Even in the silent era, cinema stopped being just the art of the moving image and instead became the art of story telling through the medium of the moving image. Then of course cinema took another evolutionary step in the 1920's and became the art of story telling through the combined medium of sound and the moving image. The fact that many filmmakers and critics appear stuck with or at least primarily focused on this century old view and definition of film is why, IMHO, general public audiences often disagree with the critics and why so many art-house and indie films struggle to achieve wide public appeal.

I also don't agree that "you can make a great film without sound", I can't think of any films made in the last 80 years or so without sound which the public would consider great.

If the new film Gravity had weak performances and was shot terribly, I would have probably hated the film.

And if it had been edited poorly, the performances would have been destroyed, the pacing of the story telling would have been destroyed and while some critics and filmmakers may still have gushed over the cinematography, the public would have shunned it!! And of course, even the perception of the cinematography itself can be massively enhanced or destroyed in post-production by brilliant or incompetent colour grading!

While shooting a film, you should get the best footage, audio, and performances you can, then clean, refine, and organize everything in post.

I agree that the "fix it in post" attitude most commonly ends up with a compromised film and I also agree that one should always attempt to get the best possible footage, audio and performances during shooting but I don't agree that post-production is or should be just about cleaning, refining and organising. Post-production is where the film is made, it's where the actors' final performance is montaged, it's where the world beyond the frame boundaries are created, it's where the mood and pacing of the story telling is defined and it's therefore where you engross the audience or detach them so much from the story that they start thinking about the cinematography or worse still, become more interested in sending SMS's!

G

 

[Alcove Audio]

Cinema is the art of the moving image. There were great films before sound made by guys like Carl Theodor Dreyer, Charlie Chaplin (who took a long time to move into sound), Buster Keaton, F.W. Murnau, D.W. Griffith, Fritz Lang, and many more. My opinion is that, anything you add to a film should be done well. So you can make a great film without sound, but if you add sound to your film it better be done with excellence. I feel the same way about fast cutting, camera movement, and slow contemplative films (if your film is "contemplative" give me something to contemplate).

But film has never been a silent medium. There has always been, at the very least, musical accompaniment. In fact, 99% of pre-sync sound films had a written score, and that written score contained very, very specific notations (tempo and cue points) so that the conductor could keep the live orchestra in sync with the actions appearing on the screen.

You have to keep the historical perspective in mind. Films originally did not have the mass distribution process that evolved in the early 1920's. Films went on tour just like - and often with - the vaudeville and other acts of the era. So a film would start it's "life" in the major cities - New York, Philly, Boston, Chicago, etc.; perhaps 20 cities. In these major venues the film got the "full treatment" - an expanded symphony orchestra and a sound team of up to 20 people behind the screen performing sound effects in sync with the film!!!

After this first run there would be additional copies of the successful, popular films printed and they would do the big/major vaudeville ("B") circuit. On these tours there would be only a few people doing the sound effects behind the screen. After this second "run" the film would go to the "C" circuit. There would be a very small group of musicians to accompany the film, and the drummer was expected to supply the sound effects. The drummers would put together "contraptions" that incorporated all sorts of sound effects devices, and the drummer with the best "traps kit" usually got the gig. This is the genesis of the modern drum kit. (BTW, in the 20's and 30's percussionists with the bass drum/snare/tom-tom/hi-hat/cymbal set-up did not play drum kits, they played "traps" as it was still a contraption.)

It was when the films went into the "D" and lower showings that they did not have sound effects accompanying the film. It was not unusual for the score to disappear in transit as well, so the local piano or organ player would play classical music - hence so many of the early musical clichés. In fact, very few original silent film scores survive.

This article may be of interest:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031203095914/http://www.windworld.com/emi/articles/soundeffects.htm

And, for fun, and because it's a part of my personal history, this is a picture of my Aunt Emily who played "traps" for silent film in the early non-sync sound film era.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

My posts in this thread were in response to the OP, who said that he didn't understand how audiences could be bored by films which had "FANTASTIC cinematography" and why art-house films often had high scores from critics and low scores from the general viewing public. The reason, IMHO is precisely because of this statement:

I don't agree with the OP's statement, but the importance of cinematography is undeniable.

In it's very earliest days this statement might have been true of cinema but it stopped being true about a hundred years ago! Even in the silent era, cinema stopped being just the art of the moving image and instead became the art of story telling through the medium of the moving image. Then of course cinema took another evolutionary step in the 1920's and became the art of story telling through the combined medium of sound and the moving image. The fact that many filmmakers and critics appear stuck with or at least primarily focused on this century old view and definition of film is why, IMHO, general public audiences often disagree with the critics and why so many art-house and indie films struggle to achieve wide public appeal.

Yes, filmmaking is storytelling. Filmmaking is also a visual medium. Audio is very unappreciated by many. But films can be made with just music and moving images.

I also don't agree that "you can make a great film without sound", I can't think of any films made in the last 80 years or so without sound which the public would consider great.

There are great silent films, such as City Lights and The Artist, but there are very few.

And if it had been edited poorly, the performances would have been destroyed, the pacing of the story telling would have been destroyed and while some critics and filmmakers may still have gushed over the cinematography, the public would have shunned it!! And of course, even the perception of the cinematography itself can be massively enhanced or destroyed in post-production by brilliant or incompetent colour grading!

Production and post production are both important. If you shoot something, and it turns out terribly, but is edited well - it's probably going to suck. If you shoot something that is awesome, but is edited horribly, it's probably going to suck. Both are important fields of filmmaking, and each should be payed attention to, and done as well as possible. NO AMOUNT OF POST REFINEMENT AND TRIMMING CAN SAVE SOMETHING THAT SUCKS

I agree that the "fix it in post" attitude most commonly ends up with a compromised film and I also agree that one should always attempt to get the best possible footage, audio and performances during shooting

Agreed.

but I don't agree that post-production is or should be just about cleaning, refining and organizing. Post-production is where the film is made, it's where the actors' final performance is montaged, it's where the world beyond the frame boundaries are created, it's where the mood and pacing of the story telling is defined and it's therefore where you engross the audience or detach them so much from the story that they start thinking about the cinematography or worse still, become more interested in sending SMS's!

mon·tage
mänˈtäZH,mōn-,mōN-/
noun
1.
the process or technique of selecting, editing, and piecing together separate sections of film to form a continuous whole.

or·gan·ize
ˈôrgəˌnīz/
verb
1.
arrange into a structured whole; order.

Creating a montage and organizing clips are the same, pretty much. Organization is arranging something into a structured whole, and creating a montage is selecting, editing, and piecing (arranging) sections to form a structured whole.

It's where the mood and pacing is defined. But what about when you are shooting the film? Aren't the images and performances captured important as well? Without sounds, images, and performances, there is no mood and pacing at all! What is captured during production plays a major role in the manipulation of the audience's emotions. Camera-work and audio can make or break a film.

Production is important. Post production is important. Neither should be overlooked or unappreciated. I don't think we can argue that.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

There has always been, at the very least, musical accompaniment.

+1

Although I think we'd still categorize films only accompanied by a score, silent, right?

 

[Alcove Audio]

Didi you read the rest of what I wrote? The whole point was that, at least initially, non-sync sound films had everything except dialog. It was only when you got to the "D" level rooms that you did not get the complete treatment of musical accompaniment and sound effects.

Modern audiences really miss out with restored silent films. After the restoration process the films look much better, but are "cheated out of" the immersive experience of a live orchestra and live sound effects. Plus the fact, as I mentioned, that almost all of the original scores have been lost.


BTW, write to TCM and support my request to have live sound effects along with the live orchestra with TCMs annual silent film fest.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Didi you read the rest of what I wrote?

Yes

BTW, write to TCM and support my request to have live sound effects along with the live orchestra with TCMs annual silent film fest.

Okay. Will do

---------


Also, sorry for threadjacking OP

 

[MiniJamesW]

Great post Alcove! It was interesting to read.

Just to clarify, I never intended to undervalue the importance of sound in film. I just feel that sometimes some people focus too much on the technical side of filmmaking and not on the artistic side (which is usually directing, acting, and writing but sometimes also includes editing and sound).

I don't think that general audience opinion matters aside from making money, they praise films that are formulaic and ignore films that deserve attention.

I still feel that cinema is the art of the moving image, period. That's what makes it different from painting, sculpture, photography, music, or any other art form. Not all films have to tell a story, there are purely visual films and every film has to have a moving image even though you can remove any other element. I have seen Japanese silent films by Kenji Mizoguchi, Yasujiro Ozu, and Mikio Naruse that didn't have any sound to them and I still enjoyed them (though I think they originally did have benshi narrators and musical accompaniment, and that would've improved the experience).

But yeah, I still maintain my viewpoint that every element in a film should be done well in order to make a great film, but the film does not need to have every element (sound, camera movement, special effects, etc.). Different films require different tools, we don't need to use them all. If we all start using the same tools and the same process we get repetitive and uninspired films.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I still feel that cinema is the art of the moving image, period.

No, modern film is the marriage of of moving images and sync-sound.

"Sound if HALF of the experience."

Or, if you insist, turn off the sound of any film from 1927 onward and then tell me that " cinema is the art of the moving image, period."

Modern film is the most difficult - and unique - of arts because it requires such a large team of people working together. There are a huge number of technically artistic crafts and strictly functional crafts that must work together in order for a film to come together. However, in the end, there are only two senses affected - sight and sound. The modern filmmaker must make the most use of BOTH. Could you imagine "Gravity" (or any film of the last 25 years) with just the production sound?

 

[MiniJamesW]

Not every modern film has sound, and the moving image (with editing I guess) is still the only unique property of cinema. I'm not saying that film SHOULD just be the moving image though.

I don't want to get too into it but some great Chinese films of the 1930's either didn't have sound or made very little use of it and I enjoyed those. I think that sound is half of the experience when used, and it should be used to enhance the experience but as I stated with my Japanese silent film example, it's not required.

I agree with you that cinema is a synthesis of the arts and that's what makes it so awesome for me. I'm sorry if I seemed like I was undervaluing sound or any non-visual aspect of filmmaking. I think its important for any relevant film today to master both sight and sound (if its looking for an audience). I have a question though.

Would you consider an art film by Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa inferior to a Steven Spielberg (who I love btw) film just because it doesn't have the same awesome sound work? That's really my main problem, I watch films that don't make use of fancy sound work, and I can't believe some would choose 'mainstream' over classics just because of technical things such as special effects or surround sound as opposed to the content and style of the film.

 

[Cracker Funk]

So what should this tell you? It should tell you that cinematography, even FANTASTIC cinematography, is not enough to make a film good (or even interesting!) for most people! That doesn't mean to say you can make a good, interesting film with crap cinematography, just that many filmmakers (and many/most critics) place far more importance on cinematography than do general public audiences. The result of this skewed concept of what makes a film good or interesting is that filmmakers frequently spend a disproportionate amount of their time, effort and budget on the cinematography at the expense of some of the other film crafts.

Contrary to the popular belief of many indie filmmakers, a film is actually made in post production, NOT in pre-production or even production. The pre-production and production phases of filmmaking are only concerned with creating the raw ingredients for the film. As with making a cake though; a cake is only as good as it's raw ingredients but the actual act of making a cake is the mixing of those ingredients in precisely the correct proportions and in the baking! Read most movie critiques (or listen to most indie filmmakers) and they will likely be focused on little or nothing more than the cinematography, the script and the acting, and of course the director responsible for these 3 crafts. The general public however is NOT interested in ANY of these crafts! Indeed, if a general public audience are consciously thinking about any of these crafts while watching the film, then they are by definition not engrossed in the story and their attention is wandering because they are bored. Regardless of how great the cinematography, script or acting, this is in effect a filmmaking failure!! A good film is in essence ALL about the story telling, it doesn't even have to be a good story, it just needs to be very well told ... and that means delivery and pacing!

Filmmakers and critics on the other hand, are often so engrossed by certain filmmaking crafts that they can be seduced by how well those crafts have been individually executed rather than in how well those crafts contribute to the actual art of film which is story telling. To use my previous analogy, critics can be so enthralled by the very finest organic cocoa beans that they may completely miss the fact that the finished chocolate cake may in fact be far too bitter. For whatever reason, film critics tend to focus on only some of the film making crafts, while completely ignoring other vitally important crafts and only partially appreciating how all the crafts combine for purely story telling purposes. This is why there is often a divergence between critics (and many filmmakers) and the general viewing public. The public won't give a damn that a chocolate cake may contain the world's finest cocoa beans if in fact the cake just doesn't taste good!

Art-house films are in essence cakes which use all the favourite ingredients of that individual filmmaker, regardless of whether those ingredients actually work together. I love connoisseur quality espresso, Neapolitan orange dark chocolate ice-cream, fresh giant leaf basil and Garners Pickled Onions but most likely a gourmet cake combining these finest of individual ingredients would not be palatable to anyone except maybe a handful of weird connoisseurs!

G

I don't entirely agree with this (I would argue that production and pre-production are equally important as post), but for the most part, I think APE has hit the nail on the head.

I think some of you have misunderstood him, as if he's saying that cinematography isn't important. That's not what he's saying at all. All he's saying is that cinematography, alone (or even coupled with good acting), does not make a film that general audiences would have much interest in.

As works of sheer entertainment, most "art-house" films are incomplete. I think APE's cake analogy kinda works. You may have the best chocolate in the world, but if you forget the sugar, most people won't like it.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Yes, filmmaking is storytelling. Filmmaking is also a visual medium. Audio is very unappreciated by many. But films can be made with just music and moving images.
There are great silent films, such as City Lights and The Artist, but there are very few.

So that's one film (The Artist) in the last 80 years, there may well be others, such as Koyaaniskatsi for example. The only problem here is that neither The Artist nor Koyaaniskatsi were silent films, unless of course you can conjure up some wacky philosophical argument to prove that music is not sound! In fact, both these films spent huge amounts of time and effort in creating world class musical scores to make sure that the sonic side of these films was not inferior to the visual side!

Production is important. Post production is important. Neither should be overlooked or unappreciated. I don't think we can argue that.

That is exactly my point! The OP felt that audiences should not be bored by a film if it has great cinematography. Most critics also focus on the cinematography and usually the acting and the script ... but none of these are post production processes! Critics (and many indie filmmakers) therefore do exactly the opposite of what you say they should be doing, by overlooking and under-appreciating post-production relative to production and this is the point of my posts in this thread.

I haven't referred specifically to my own field in this thread so far but to all post-production in general, but if you agree that sound design is important then why is it that critics almost never mention sound design, let alone demonstrate even the most basic knowledge of it or critique it as they do say the acting or cinematography?

I don't think that general audience opinion matters aside from making money, they praise films that are formulaic and ignore films that deserve attention.

You're missing the point, in exactly the same way as many other indie and art-house film makers and so many critics miss the point. General cinema audiences do NOT spend their time and money going to the cinema to watch a film, even though that's what they call it, they pay to experience a film. Audiences don't praise films for being formulaic, they praise films which gave them an entertaining experience and those films generally cost so much to make that studios reduce their potential risk by following a proven formula. Eventually audiences will get bored of that formula and the studios will have to develop a new one and so theatrical films will evolve as they have always done. Film making is about the telling of a story (abstractly or narratively), to make an audience think and/or feel something and thereby "experience" a film. One of the earliest horror films (although it wasn't called that at the time) was a simple unedited shot of a train steaming towards the camera. It was a great horror film because many audiences of the day ran screaming from the cinema, thinking the train was going to continue through the camera/projection screen, into the auditorium and flatten them! It's only a great theatrical horror film taken in it's historical context though. Today it wouldn't generate any horror and probably wouldn't even generate enough interest to interrupt most of the audience from texting their mates!

I have a question though... Would you consider an art film by Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa inferior to a Steven Spielberg (who I love btw) film just because it doesn't have the same awesome sound work? That's really my main problem, I watch films that don't make use of fancy sound work, and I can't believe some would choose 'mainstream' over classics just because of technical things such as special effects or surround sound as opposed to the content and style of the film.

And I can't believe some would choose technical things like the cinematography and acting over whether a film succeeds in making you feel like you're there and of being involved in the story! Surround Sound is just technical equipment, cinema audiences expect surround sound (and will pay an additional premium for the even better Dolby Atmos) NOT because it is technical equipment but because of how it is used artistically to enhance their cinematic experience! Audiences can watch a film far more cheaply at home on their TV, computer, tablet or smartphone, so why do they still pay to go to the cinema and directly linked to this question, why do surround sound and Dolby Atmos even exist?

To answer your question: On the basis of today's cinematic experience expectations, obviously Bergman and Kurosawa films are massively inferior to Spielberg films. To appreciate Bergman or Kurosawa you have to adjust your expectations of the cinematic experience to account for their historical context and generally it's only film critics, film buffs and filmmakers who are able or willing to do this, rather than the cinema going public. In their day Bergman films were great and in fact were so great that they have withstood the test of time far better than most films of their era but the pacing and overall theatrical experience does not match the expectations of today's paying audiences.

Not every modern film has sound, and the moving image (with editing I guess) is still the only unique property of cinema.

Can you provide just a few examples of a modern commercial films which don't have any sound.

And, the moving image is most certainly not a unique property of cinema! What about: TV, Skype video chats, powerpoint business presentations, moving image surveillance systems like CCTV, artistic A/V installations, some museum exhibitions, a million cat home videos, electric billboards and hoardings, the parallax effect on my iPhone, etc, etc.

Just to clarify, I never intended to undervalue the importance of sound in film
...

But then you say "I still feel that cinema is the art of the moving image, period.", and that sound is "not required". Sorry but these statements appears EXACTLY like you are undervaluing the importance of sound! And, this statement: "I just feel that sometimes some people focus too much on the technical side of filmmaking and not on the artistic side (which is usually directing, acting, and writing but sometimes also includes editing and sound).":- Appears to explain why you undervalue sound and editing. Maybe in your filmmaking editing and sound are mainly technical exercises but the fundamental tenet of both should ALWAYS primarily be the art of film making; manipulating the audience into perceiving, thinking or feeling something.

I'm not telling you how to make your films, that's of course up to you. I was explaining to the OP why critics and the public often disagree, particularly about indie and art-house features and why cinematography, however good, is never enough on it's own to make a cinematic experience which the general public will appreciate.

G

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

So that's one film (The Artist) in the last 80 years, there may well be others, such as Koyaaniskatsi for example. The only problem here is that neither The Artist nor Koyaaniskatsi were silent films, unless of course you can conjure up some wacky philosophical argument to prove that music is not sound! In fact, both these films spent huge amounts of time and effort in creating world class musical scores to make sure that the sonic side of these films was not inferior to the visual side!

There are very few modern silent films that are watchable. I'm not trying to say that sound is not important, nor I am trying to say that audio is any way inferior to all other areas of filmmaking, and I'm definitely not trying to sat that audio is not important. I'm not saying that you've accused me of that, I'm just trying to get that out of the way. I usually think that films only accompanied by a score would be categorized as silent, since all throughout history film has pretty much been paired with some type of sound - like Alcove had stated in a past post.

That is exactly my point! The OP felt that audiences should not be bored by a film if it has great cinematography. Most critics also focus on the cinematography and usually the acting and the script ... but none of these are post production processes! Critics (and many indie filmmakers) therefore do exactly the opposite of what you say they should be doing, by overlooking and under-appreciating post-production relative to production and this is the point of my posts in this thread.

We agree! Many filmmakers, critics, and movie audiences overall often overlook the importance of some fields of filmmaking and someone conjure up the idea that one field of filmmaking is not important at all or should not have much attention payed up to. I apologize, I assumed that you were saying that post production is more important than the actual shooting of film.

All fields of filmmaking should have as much dedication and effort as another. As filmmakers, we should not underestimate the importance of fields that we are not familiar with (especially audio). I agree with you.

I haven't referred specifically to my own field in this thread so far but to all post-production in general, but if you agree that sound design is important then why is it that critics almost never mention sound design, let alone demonstrate even the most basic knowledge of it or critique it as they do say the acting or cinematography?

For many reasons, but one of them is because sound is not something seen. When people pull off audio well, it does not draw attention to itself because it is so skillfully done. It also may be because of the film camera is one of the most memorable and well known images to audiences and critics. When someone talks about films or filmmaking, usually people think of a camera.

To answer your question: On the basis of today's cinematic experience expectations, obviously Bergman and Kurosawa films are massively inferior to Spielberg films. To appreciate Bergman or Kurosawa you have to adjust your expectations of the cinematic experience to account for their historical context and generally it's only film critics, film buffs and filmmakers who are able or willing to do this, rather than the cinema going public. In their day Bergman films were great and in fact were so great that they have withstood the test of time far better than most films of their era but the pacing and overall theatrical experience does not match the expectations of today's paying audiences.

Exactly, which is a question filmmakers have to ask themselves: Who am I making my film for? Like you stated, a film like that of the work of Kurosawa is not going to become a mainstream hit, although if the film is done well there is a possibility of getting recognition from those that dedicate a large portion of their life to film.

------

In the end, it doesn't matter how we make our films, as long as we can share our artistic vision with others and appeal to an audience.

Great discussion

 

[MiniJamesW]

Seriously AudioPostExpert that was a great post and I learned a lot with it. I think that a lot of the argument arises from the fact that I didn't fully understand your original point.

You're entirely right about the way general audiences perceive cinema as an entertainment experience rather than just to watch a film.

There is an art to sound and editing. I definitely don't undervalue editing since it is my favorite part of the filmmaking process (although I think there isn't much art to the editing in most commercial films). I'm sorry for my ignorance in the process of how sound in film works, I know that there's more to it than just a technical process but I wouldn't be able to appreciate or recognize it as much as you or Alcove.

Well, I don't think of film on the basis of audience expectations. I watch a film, "experience" it and if it engaged me intellectually, emotionally, or otherwise then I think it is a great film. Michael Bay definitely provides quality entertainment for his audience's expectations but I wouldn't say they are great. I guess we disagree on this point, I don't think Bergman's films were great just in their day, I think they are still great today and will always be great. Bergman, Kurosawa, Ozu, Fellini, and other filmmakers will stand the test of time because they made truly great works, its the same if you look at the classical music repertoire, people continue to play Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart because they made great music.

I never said there were completely silent commercial films today. My point was that if you turn off the sound you still have a movie but if you eliminate the moving image then there is no movie. I'm not saying that films should not have sound or that sound isn't important, I'm just saying that the only essential component for a film is the moving image.

I recognize that other media has moving image now, but it originated with film and I think there is a clear difference between a cat video, a TV show, or a Powerpoint presentation and a film.

I think this was a good discussion, it got me thinking more on how to improve the art of filmmaking processes that I considered just "technical" before in my own work. Thanks for your insightful responses.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

I don't think Bergman's films were great just in their day, I think they are still great today and will always be great. Bergman, Kurosawa, Ozu, Fellini, and other filmmakers will stand the test of time because they made truly great works, its the same if you look at the classical music repertoire, people continue to play Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart because they made great music.

But are they "great" to audiences today? Sure, there are fans of those styles of films, but would they appeal to audiences of today?

 

[MiniJamesW]

But are they "great" to audiences today? Sure, there are fans of those styles of films, but would they appeal to audiences of today?

No they would not appeal to audiences of today but I don't think that is relevant to the art of film. I'll bring up my usual comparison, it doesn't really matter if most audiences today prefer Rihanna to Beethoven, her music will not be relevant in a hundred years while Beethoven's music probably will be.

Film is meaningful to me, so as a viewer I don't care what general audiences think, there is so much great cinema out there so I won't waste my time watching formulaic "entertaining" (which honestly entertain me less and less the more I explore film) pictures when I can watch meaningful artistic expressions.

Now as a filmmaker, it becomes harder to know when to make films that I think are meaningful and when to make films that appeal to a mass audience. I think that's what really matters, as a filmmaker, what is our role? Some filmmakers choose to please the masses, others choose to challenge them, others don't care about the audience and make films for themselves, and others want to cause political or social change. It's difficult since I think most filmmakers want people to watch their films but many of them also care about the medium and making meaningful works.