I feel I am cheating myself...

hunter richards said:
I cracked up at that trailer! Looks like a fun film to watch. When is it going to be finished?
Click to expand...

Hopefully June or July. I am off at college, but I shot the film in my home town, and I have a few scenes left to shoot, so I'll be finishing those in June, then doing the final editing, sound, color, ect in July hopefully.

I really like the movie I'm making because I wrote the script just after graduating high school, before I knew anything about cameras or lighting or anything. Then, my first year at college I learned all about the boring technical crap, and I feel this more than anything has been weighing me down. Thinking about technical aspects of a movie over a story ruins your creativity.
 
jpastuch said:
No one says "this poem is not entertaining! This painting has NO PLOT!" The reason that poet made such a good movie is because she probably didn't get trapped up in the silly things we're talking about. "OH I HOPE IT HAS THREE ACTS. AND A RISING ACTION!" Right.
Click to expand...

Let's not confuse "plot" and "story." Even a painting tells a story, though it has no plot... no rising action, no resolution, no "three-act" presentation. But it still tells a story, and that is why we enjoy it. A visually stunning frame of a moment in time that speaks volumes. That is story, and is the driving force.

jpastuch said:
... the details of what happen in the plot are barely even important. The characters' emotions, the style of the film, what the artist is trying to say is what becomes important.
Click to expand...

What the artist is trying to say? How is that different from "telling a story?" How does this prove that story takes a back seat?

jpastuch said:
What about the film The Passion of Joan of Arc? How about Killing of a Chinese Bookie or A Woman Under the Influence? or Godard's Breathless? How about even Scorsese's mean streets? Ozu's Late Spring? Yes, many of these films follow a "story", but it's barely important. Things like atmosphere, moments and substance are what matters. Not some clever plot twist or Hitchcock gasp moment.
Click to expand...

Atmosphere, moments, substance... all these are crucial parts of a story. Not every good story has a plot twist or a "gasp" moment. But the film is a story. Period.

jpastuch said:
The plot is more or less secondary. These films don't cut things out just because they might "bore" someone or deviate from a silly plot. And because they don't follow some rigid structure about plots, it gives them freedom.
Click to expand...

Again, erroneously using "plot" as a replacement for "story." Even the dead animal on the roadside tells a story. Otherwise, the film maker probably would not have let it roll for 58 minutes. (That's not to say that there aren't a few folks out there who do weird things merely for the sake of doing weird things...)

Story has no set formula. A complete and riveting story can be told in a five-minute short or in a two-hour feature. It can be told in a photograph or painting, or a sculpture. It can be told in a short poem or a six-volume epic novel.

To say that story is not king pretty much defeats the purpose of art.

One of my favorite short films is a French-language film that is (poorly) subtitled, called "Even Pigeons Go To Heaven." And the story that it tells is something so far and above what the "plot" contains. Another favorite is "Legend of the Scarecrow." It's a Spanish-language, and I have yet to find a copy of it with Subtitles (you can find it on Vimeo). It tells an incredible story... even without the subtitles and despite the fact that my three years of high-school Spanish have long since vanished. Both of these are animated shorts. Both are stunning. Both are wonderful stories.
 
Last edited:
Well, it looks to me like you're just using an incredibly broad definition of story. You're saying emotions and moments are "story" and I disagree. Because an emotion, a feeling, a moment is something that is happening to you in present time. It's an experience. It's like if you walked around a park for a day, feeling lonely, and you see someone far off in the woods and they're walking too, and you think about talking to them. Then a flock of birds scare you. Is there a "story" there? Sure. But capturing something like that in life, in my opinion, digs much deeper than story, plot, or character. It's about the emotions we all feel, the struggles of living, the experience of the moment. It's complicated.

To me, what's so unique and great about film is that it gives you an experience in TIME. Meaning moments can linger and editing of images can give new emotions and experiences in style in ways other art forms can't. What I'm stressing is that by focusing all of your energy on high production values or having a "tight" script that simply tells a story, it's not enough.

To me it's like the differences between someone telling you about someone they know and meeting them. Or even better, living with them a few years. Your best friends tell a "Story" to you their whole lives, but it's nothing you can define. It's complicated and filled with intereactions and experiences that can't just be layed out and read and concluded.

If you want to call it a story, then fine. Whatever. To me, it isn't, it's something deeper. I've derailed this thread and I apologize, I'm talking more appropriately about it in another thread on this site, so I won't respond here about it anymore. But thanks for discussing it, I think it's interesting stuff and many people just gloss over these thoughts in our field.
 
jpastuch said: >>It's kind of crazy how people keep twisting my words around. Ha. a great film can be entertaining.<<


Funny. Pot calling kettle black.

I NEVER said "Story is King".
I merely said CONTENT IS KING.

You yammered on (incessantly) about something that wasn't relevant (to what I mentioned), which is indicative of your limited power of observation and recognition.
If you can't keep track of a simple point being made in a disembodied communication- how do you expect to carry a single thought through an entire feature length film?

I see you're going "ƒilm noir" in your quest.
What did you say- 'flat, washed out, no contrast'.
Hopefully whatever you put under that light will stand out nicely.

I mean, after all, the content on the 2D plane is KING. eh?

I must agree with you on some points- no shi*.
But, once you get going and have some stuff in the can, I'll bet you'll see things quite differently.

Remember, you're preaching to the choir here.
We're all in this, to one form or another, and at different depths.
Some with practically no experience, others with arm length CV's in the biz.

Also, as I said, it really doesn't matter what it costs to make the thing.
Budget is not a measure of success.
For all the ones made with 'short' money, there's a bastion full of big budget bombs too!
(let's avoid making that list lest it turns stomachs!)

I'm all for applauding good work enthusiastically.
I don't care by whom, for how much, or what the 'artist statement' was.
Content is king, and I want to be moved by it.
 
Last edited:
yommytacoe said:
Hopefully June or July. I am off at college, but I shot the film in my home town, and I have a few scenes left to shoot, so I'll be finishing those in June, then doing the final editing, sound, color, ect in July hopefully.

I really like the movie I'm making because I wrote the script just after graduating high school, before I knew anything about cameras or lighting or anything. Then, my first year at college I learned all about the boring technical crap, and I feel this more than anything has been weighing me down. Thinking about technical aspects of a movie over a story ruins your creativity.
Click to expand...

slap a compressor and limiter on that audio and some magic bullet on that trailer and you have something as good as any big directors first low budget film.
 
You don't find Citizen Kane entertaining???

Really?

Why not?

I am sincerely interested and not joking around at all.
 
"Citizen Kane" was great, on many levels. I've always enjoyed watching it.
I see something new in it every time.

"A Touch of Evil" is more enjoyable, for me, but only because it was so effective in creating suspense- at almost every turn.
So matter-of-factly dealing with formerly taboo issues- and, again, levels of input from all sides.
Snip- cut out everything but the audio track and take a listen.
it's incredible.

"Dodeskaden" is another, possibly obscure, work that is worthy of mention.

BUT- we digress (well, I do).
Question at hand, from the outset, was about 'cheating' oneself on budget.

There isn't any reason that a powerfully effective film (like the ones mentioned that we favor so much) can't be made for $300.00 +/-.
I, for one, don't much care about budgets when I'm sitting in the darkened room looking at the rectangle of light on the wall- - - it's all about what's happening within the frame (and impressions from what might be just outside that frame).

What's that saying? JUST DO IT!
 
Let me just add a PS: "entertainment" is a diversion. Something that makes us "escape". American Idol. The Incredible Hulk. They're straight "entertainment". What I'm saying is people always want to be "entertained" so much that if a film takes time out to stop the plot, be incredibly personal, or let a moment play out longer than it should (to really explore something complex), the audience may get angry, restless, and turn it off. How dare someone risk being "boring" to show us something new and unique!

It's like the film Blow-Up. The first time I watched it, I was fascinated by it but couldn't understand why. The film was confusing, dull, and the characters didn't seem to have any personality at all.

Months later (this is true), I was going to sleep, and suddenly the film popped into my head. And I realized that was the point of the film- these characters were so desperately bored with themselves and trying to grasp on to something to define themselves. I couldn't sleep. I realized it was ME who was wrong- I didn't give the film a chance because it was telling ME something about life and I had refused to give it the time. I watched it again a few weeks later and it blew me away. It is in fact a great film, but yeah- it takes HARD WORK to appreciate it. I want a film that DEMANDS things, not feeds them to me. Keeps me on my toes.

So you see, yes, content, not budget, is king in a film- but that content does not have to be RIVETING or DIVERTING. It takes some effort to truly enjoy great works of art, and the poster shouldn't second guess his content if he thinks it is truly sincere and from the depths of himself. I don't know what kind of film he's making but I think that's more important than worrying if he's spending enough.

I'd be more worried about distrubution. From what I hear it's a total nightmare and insanely costly no matter how cheap your film is.

(For more great films that aren't "entertaining" in the way I described):

-Winter Light
-The Silence
-Last Year at Marienbad
-Muriel
-Pickpocket
-Tarnation
-Funny Ha Ha
-Tokyo Story
-Old Joy
-The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
-Stranger than Paradise
-Permanent Vacation

Many of these films have VERY LOW BUDGETS- but what they do with style and substance destroys the point of any cool make up or CGI. When we have very limited resources we resort to relying on ourselves and what comes from us. The writer doesn't write a great novel with a diamond encrusted pen (which reminds me, I think we all answered the poster's query by this point- like he said above me, JUST DO IT).
 
jpastuch said:
Let me just add a PS: "entertainment" is a diversion. Something that makes us "escape". American Idol. The Incredible Hulk. They're straight "entertainment". What I'm saying is people always want to be "entertained" so much that if a film takes time out to stop the plot, be incredibly personal, or let a moment play out longer than it should (to really explore something complex), the audience may get angry, restless, and turn it off. How dare someone risk being "boring" to show us something new and unique!

It's like the film Blow-Up. The first time I watched it, I was fascinated by it but couldn't understand why. The film was confusing, dull, and the characters didn't seem to have any personality at all.

Months later (this is true), I was going to sleep, and suddenly the film popped into my head. And I realized that was the point of the film- these characters were so desperately bored with themselves and trying to grasp on to something to define themselves. I couldn't sleep. I realized it was ME who was wrong- I didn't give the film a chance because it was telling ME something about life and I had refused to give it the time. I watched it again a few weeks later and it blew me away. It is in fact a great film, but yeah- it takes HARD WORK to appreciate it. I want a film that DEMANDS things, not feeds them to me. Keeps me on my toes.

So you see, yes, content, not budget, is king in a film- but that content does not have to be RIVETING or DIVERTING. It takes some effort to truly enjoy great works of art, and the poster shouldn't second guess his content if he thinks it is truly sincere and from the depths of himself. I don't know what kind of film he's making but I think that's more important than worrying if he's spending enough.

I'd be more worried about distrubution. From what I hear it's a total nightmare and insanely costly no matter how cheap your film is.

(For more great films that aren't "entertaining" in the way I described):

-Winter Light
-The Silence
-Last Year at Marienbad
-Muriel
-Pickpocket
-Tarnation
-Funny Ha Ha
-Tokyo Story
-Old Joy
-The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
-Stranger than Paradise
-Permanent Vacation

Many of these films have VERY LOW BUDGETS- but what they do with style and substance destroys the point of any cool make up or CGI. When we have very limited resources we resort to relying on ourselves and what comes from us. The writer doesn't write a great novel with a diamond encrusted pen (which reminds me, I think we all answered the poster's query by this point- like he said above me, JUST DO IT).
Click to expand...

At this point, I think we just have different ideas of what entertaining is. You seem to think entertainment is a mindless, explosion-ridden affair. That's completely cool, as the words 'mindless' and 'entertainment' have been forever intertwined by critics everywhere. But I believe a movie that interests me in an artistic fashion still entertains me. Citizen Kane was entertaining, but so was Die Hard. They're just entertaining for vastly different reasons. At least, this is my thought process.

While I do agree that people should risk being boring if they think they have something great on their hands, but if it doesn't work, then it did run the risk of being boring. Take Wes Anderson's later movies, for instance. The Darjeeling Limited, while alright, paled in comparison to Rushmore and Bottle Rocket. He tried something different from the norm but ended up trying to imitate himself and failing fairly miserably.

And finally, a moment should never play longer than it should. I think that saying speaks for itself, but I know what you're getting at.
 
It's hard to tell if you are cheating yourself if you don't provide a breakdown of what you are planning on spending your money on.

I did a micro budget feature, speaking from experience the best thing you can do is start with your core team and start evaluating your resources as a group. If you don't have a lot of resources, are concerned about the production, you should consider expanding your core team.
 
nouou said:
I feel I am cheating myself by budgeting too many things that in my mind are a necessity or will make the film look/sound better, yet other people are pulling off decent films with pure mico-budgets. Has anyone else felt this before? I am curious if I'm the only one.
Click to expand...

I talk about this in my book "Action Filmmaking". We worry a lot about what we think we need. You'll always be able to use more but in pulling off that first film you really have to use what you have. My first feature was $800. You've got more than I had. LOL.

-Nate
 
No offense...

No offense...

jpastuch said:
Let me just add a PS: "entertainment" is a diversion. Something that makes us "escape". American Idol. The Incredible Hulk. They're straight "entertainment". What I'm saying is people always want to be "entertained" so much that if a film takes time out to stop the plot, be incredibly personal, or let a moment play out longer than it should (to really explore something complex), the audience may get angry, restless, and turn it off. How dare someone risk being "boring" to show us something new and unique!

It's like the film Blow-Up. The first time I watched it, I was fascinated by it but couldn't understand why. The film was confusing, dull, and the characters didn't seem to have any personality at all.

Months later (this is true), I was going to sleep, and suddenly the film popped into my head. And I realized that was the point of the film- these characters were so desperately bored with themselves and trying to grasp on to something to define themselves. I couldn't sleep. I realized it was ME who was wrong- I didn't give the film a chance because it was telling ME something about life and I had refused to give it the time. I watched it again a few weeks later and it blew me away. It is in fact a great film, but yeah- it takes HARD WORK to appreciate it. I want a film that DEMANDS things, not feeds them to me. Keeps me on my toes.

So you see, yes, content, not budget, is king in a film- but that content does not have to be RIVETING or DIVERTING. It takes some effort to truly enjoy great works of art, and the poster shouldn't second guess his content if he thinks it is truly sincere and from the depths of himself. I don't know what kind of film he's making but I think that's more important than worrying if he's spending enough.

I'd be more worried about distrubution. From what I hear it's a total nightmare and insanely costly no matter how cheap your film is.

(For more great films that aren't "entertaining" in the way I described):

-Winter Light
-The Silence
-Last Year at Marienbad
-Muriel
-Pickpocket
-Tarnation
-Funny Ha Ha
-Tokyo Story
-Old Joy
-The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
-Stranger than Paradise
-Permanent Vacation

Many of these films have VERY LOW BUDGETS- but what they do with style and substance destroys the point of any cool make up or CGI. When we have very limited resources we resort to relying on ourselves and what comes from us. The writer doesn't write a great novel with a diamond encrusted pen (which reminds me, I think we all answered the poster's query by this point- like he said above me, JUST DO IT).
Click to expand...

But what you're describing is exactly that... Storytelling.

I just think you don't know ENOUGH about storytelling... What hit you about that movie was its THEME.

THEME is part of STORY.

A lot of Hollywood movies don't worry about theme or characters because they've proven many times over that they can get the ticket-buying demographic in with movies like MALL COP.

Maybe I shouldn't say that because I haven't actually seen MALL COP... LOL. But something tells me that I've pretty much seen the entire movie in all the clips they've shown in the commercials promotiong it.

Which is fine.

Entertainment is no different than beauty -- no different than art -- As in entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.

Everything you're saying SCREAMS STORY... You just seem to be isolating elements of it that create emotion in you...

No harm in that... That's what outstanding films do.

Unk
 
Actually, sounds like you just don't know what art is and what it can be. All I can say is sorry and nice try. Look up "entertainment" in the dictionary and if you want, stay trapped inside the limitations of "storytelling". It sounds like it's working out as an excellent security blanket for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top