10,000 hours

There is definitely something to be said for genetics; if you don't have the genes, no amount of work in the gym (or injections of steroids) will turn you into Lou Ferrigno...
 
You guys really believe some people have better filmmaker DNA than others? Or the even lazier excuse, that some people just have "it" ?

This is an intellectual cop-out. Filmmaking is not body building. To assume a biological disadvantage as a storyteller is the sort of defeatist mindset that makes people quit after 150 hours of trying.

Nobody of any remarkable talent in filmmaking has ever claimed a gift from God. Why would you pin this on them? It's an excuse. If you aren't immediately Kubrick, you assume you don't have "it." What the hell is this It?

The filmmakers who tell great stories all say, "I'm a craftsman, not an artist. I'm just a professional, dedicated to the work."

Dedicate yourself to the work and you too might experience this magical It.
 
Drew Ott said:
You guys really believe some people have better filmmaker DNA than others?
Click to expand...

No. But some people can adapt more easily to what film making asks for when it's not a - however professional executed - delivery of certain clearly defined services via the media of the moving and talking picture. Narrative film stands on the shoulders of all other arts. And even in it's shallower forms, even in b- or c-pictures, it still needs a special extra to make it really greater or even only more remarkable than average. And this extra is talent. The talent to combine the different creative powers into something new.

I do believe that creative and intellectual multitasking is what directors need first and above - as Calaghanfilms says - the ability to be a story teller. And the latter is the most complex part. But, true, dedication is the starting point. Talent without it is as empty as the other way round.
 
alex whitmer said:
It argues there is no such thing as genius, only commitment to craft.
Click to expand...
This isn't really his argument. His argument is that genius isn't the only or necessarily the greatest element/predictor of success. Environment, opportunity and amount of time/work are better predictors. Basically his premise is: talent alone gets you nowhere.
This is really not much different than the maxim "Show me a fanatic and I'll show you a success".
 
Last edited:
Drew Ott said:
You guys really believe some people have better filmmaker DNA than others? Or the even lazier excuse, that some people just have "it" ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, unquestionably, without a doubt, 100%. Just like some bodybuilders have better genetic potential than others, just like some people have brains that are more suited to analytical pursuits, there are most definitely some people whose natural abilities are more suited to storytelling than others.

This is an intellectual cop-out. Filmmaking is not body building. To assume a biological disadvantage as a storyteller is the sort of defeatist mindset that makes people quit after 150 hours of trying.
Click to expand...
I agree with you many times, but on this I must absolutely and inherently disagree. People are different, and some people have gifts in certain areas that other people just don't have. And that applies to intellect as well as it applies to physicality. Our programming, our wiring, our predispositions, our interests -- those are all unique and some people's talents are more suited to and aligned with the requirements of storytelling, than others are.

And yes, some people absolutely should quit after 150 hours of trying. Just like some singers on American Idol really should abandon the dream, because they just don't have what it takes.

With hard work you can absolutely improve anything and everything that you attempt. But not everyone is suited equally for every pursuit. If you "find your thing", and then you work harder at it than anyone else does, you can be great at it. But if what you're pursuing is something that's not in the cards for you, then not only would much of your effort be wasted, but the opportunity cost is so huge, because I do firmly believe that everyone is equally gifted in potential, just not all in the same subjects, so -- what could you have become, if you'd pursued something that was within your natural abilities, instead of pursuing something that's outside of them?

The filmmakers who tell great stories all say, "I'm a craftsman, not an artist. I'm just a professional, dedicated to the work."
Click to expand...
Isn't that what all greats say? Isn't it only the asshats who claim some divine right?

Dedicate yourself to the work and you too might experience this magical It.
Click to expand...
Dedicate yourself to the work and you'll get better at it, certainly. But if we're talking about the greats, the true greats, that takes the right combination of interests, abilities, and effort.
 
aly324 said:
Barry, what game is/was your world record in?
Click to expand...

I had several back in the day, but -- back in the day, we only held those records for a short while before some other dedicated player came along and took it. The records were kept at the Twin Galaxies Arcade in Ottumwa, Iowa, and it was... what, 30 years ago? I specifically remember holding the record on Tempest and on "Star Trek" -- the original vector game from about 1982. But there were several others that I (and many others) could play perpetually, and so whoever held the current record on that was just subject to the next guy playing until he dropped, so games like Asteroids and Defender and Centipede and Stargate and Pac Man were all games that lots of us could play until we dropped. Interestingly, now that I think about it, much of the reason I'd get ahead on those games is because I'd play by my own rules -- on Defender, I'd go and shoot eight of the ten men you were supposed to protect, so I only had to protect two, and I'd carry them around with me... that drastically reduced the odds that the aliens would capture them and mutate them, because when the last guy was turned mutant then that blew up the world and that's when you started losing ships. On Centipede, my strategy was to never actually shoot the centipede, I'd instead eradicate every single mushroom on the board, except one in the lower left and one in the lower right; that would keep the same, original centipede on the screen forever, and then you'd make your points shooting spiders. The key to this strategy is that it avoided the dropping flea, he only comes out on level 2 or higher. On Asteroids, the key there was to not actually shoot the asteroids, of course; everyone knows this, you'd shoot most of the asteroids and get it down to one or two small chunks left, and then you'd spend your time hunting the alien spaceships... On Tempest there weren't any alternative strategies, you just had to be fast and get into the rhythm of the game. My favorite of all time though was the Star Wars video game, the original where you were an X-wing pilot and the controls were not a joystick but instead were a simulated fighter control. That game got a nearly perfect blend of speed, precision, everything. Of course, there was also an alternate strategy there to get massive points, when in the death star trench you had to fly "using the force"; even though there were bazillions of shots coming at you, and you COULD shoot them down, if you chose not to fire and just flew instead, never firing a shot, you'd get a huge bonus at the end...

Man, I spent way, way too much time playing games back then. I can argue I was a teen, but ... I'm sure I put in my 10,000 hours!
 
I think genetics do play a role, and also environment. I've always been able to draw/create stories/characters/poems...I never had to be "encouraged" to do it. I've always WANTED to do it, while many of my friends saw art class and creative writing class as a chore. That doesn't mean I'm great or a genius...but it does mean I was born with a knack for it.

Environment plays a role, in that some kids will never get to use their gifts because they are just in the wrong place, wrong time. Or they will be pushed away from their natural abilities for what ever reason. I believe there are geniuses right here on DVX user, I've seen it. But they aren't all in the "hey look at me...I'm famous" mold. Some of you are masters of technical craft, some of you are great writers, some are just flat out fountains of knowledge on the whole spectrum (Barry).

Genius and greatness does not need to be immediately/widely recognized for it to be so. Not on a planet of 7.1 billion people.
 
I gotta go with Barry and Charli on this. There are some things we dream of becoming, but just don't have whatever IT is to be not only good, or meerly great, but to redefine and shift paradigms in any given pursuit and/or field, or even create new ones. After years of wallowing in the writer and filmmaker forums, I think I can safely guess a healthy 90% of the writers want to be good-enough. They read all the books there are to read, they absorb all the formula fundamentals of the craft, and then try to mimic the success that has worked for others, to a varying degree of good-enough and dismal failure. But they just don't have that spark inside to ignore all the protocol and formulas and books and have-to-includes to really tell a smokin' yarn that glimmers above all others.

For many, modest success is enough, and as long as the check clears, everyone goes home happy. That's certainly a valid comfort zone and I'm not knocking it. But screenwriting didn't just happen overnight. There were risks taken, innovations embraced and discarded, and somewhere in the pile of millions of screenplays, only a few true gems exist.

Tossing in the Mozarts and the van Goghs and the Curies and such that did have IT, while we marvel over the results of their commitment to craft, we overlook what drove them to make it better, to be unhappy with the progress and try even harder to make the next one closer to their own definition of perfect. They can't sleep, they ignore their own well-being, they see everything through this perspective.

Let's be clear. A box-office orgasm is not by default a great story. More often it's just really good marketing and really entertaining. The 'ol 'It made a billion bucks, therefore it must be great' misgiving will forever mold value perception, be it film, art, music, science, literature and so on. Even among the piles in the billion-dollar club, however, only a few true gems exist. And there is no shortage of mediocre stories being glossed over with extraordinary FX with hopes that will be good enough to satisfy the investment. Add to that a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of dialogue, and you get some serious bombage.

A few films do come to mind that touch on passion over the practical application of honed skills: Dead Poet's Society, Mona Lisa's smile, A Beautiful Mind, Temple Grandin, Amadeus as well as others. King's Speech?

Anyways, I'm rambling. Again. I gotta agree not everyone can become truly great at something just because they put in the time. Be it destiny, disposition, DNA or whatever. Gotta all be in synch, and with some luck, maybe you can change the world. Or at least a small corner of it.


a


http://howtospeakscript.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/of-gods-and-kings_final-draft-2009.pdf
 
Last edited:
Thanks, all, for the interesting responses.

I'll believe in "storytelling DNA" once somebody isolates the code. Until then--

Storytellers are made, not born. I've been studying two fields recently: 1) psychosocial development and 2) philosophy of life. Together those fields seek to understand a person's experiences starting at birth, how that individual views their past experiences, and their rules for living in the future.

An individual's DNA might make a difference, but only to the degree that DNA makes us look different physically. Our genetic code gives us some variety, but it doesn't turn some of us into trees and others into lizards.

I'm an avid reader of filmmaker biographies. There are similarities between most successful filmmakers with how they view the world. I assure you that no successful filmmaker has ever gone into filmmaking with the mindset of, "I hope my DNA is good enough," or "I hope I have the It factor."

---

I agree with all of you that some people are just better than others. But not at birth! I'm not claiming everybody has equal filmmaking skill by the time they're 30 or 40. Obviously some people are good, and others are bad. But this isn't decided in the womb. It's up to you.

I think what most of you are trying to deny is that lack of talent can possibly be a person's own fault. To blame magic or some undiscovered genetic code is a losing philosophy of life. You can't bare to blame yourself, so you blame "lack of It."

Bergman decided at the start of his career to lead a ascetic life--he gave up easy pleasures and dedicated himself to cinema. It was 15 years before he started to make good films. What came first? Was it his DNA that made him decide to fully dedicate himself to his craft, or was it the simple fact that he chose? I side with the latter.

To assume your DNA matters definitively and can hold you back is to throw your future up to the luck of the lottery. You are not in control of yourself because your DNA is making the decisions. You are a biological machine, so you might as well kick back and watch your life pass by.

Meanwhile your competition believes they control their future, and guess what? Their mindset means they do.
 
Last edited:
So DNAestiny can dictate physical success (ie professional NFL'ers), but not play any hand in mental success (as in the highly creative)??
 
Last I knew, the brain was a product of genetic material. And last I knew, there were absolutely intelligence differences among different people, even at birth. Some people are born with an artistic eye, some are born with the ability to grow tall, some can play musical instruments by ear, and some are born with other advantages -- or disadvantages. To deny this would be just plain silly; surely you recognize this?

Let's put it this way: you can make the very best of what you've got. And I believe that most people, who really try, will turn out better than genetically-gifted people who don't try. But to be a true great, as again was referenced in the beginning of this thread, takes a combination of potential, and working towards that potential relentlessly.
 
I see we need a scientific study from The Department Of The Bleeding Obvious. You would think we wouldn't, but no, we actually do... because even something as obvious as the fact that some people are just naturally - genetically - gifted and when they combine that with hard work of practice, they will ALWAYS do better and achieve more than the average DNA gifted person who works just as much (and more) - well, this Bleeding Obvious thing, is clearly not obvious to some, and they'll argue and argue and argue. It's the same reason we have studies that show regularly hitting yourself in the head with a sledgehammer is unhealthy - seems obvious, but clearly not to all - and that's when science has to enter the fray. And so it is here.

Here's the study: Practice Makes Perfect? Not So Much, Newest Research Finds.

Some quotes:

"Turns out, that old "practice makes perfect" adage may be overblown. New research led by Michigan State University's Zach Hambrick finds that a copious amount of practice is not enough to explain why people differ in level of skill in two widely studied activities, chess and music."

""The evidence is quite clear," he writes, "that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice."Hambrick and colleagues analyzed 14 studies of chess players and musicians, looking specifically at how practice was related to differences in performance. Practice, they found, accounted for only about one-third of the differences in skill in both music and chess."

In other words, if you are of average genetic potential in talent, you will top out with practice beyond a certain level, no matter how much you practice. Whereas those who have more talent will go further. Case closed.

I know, I know, that's like saying "water is wet" - duh! Of course, you need both - practice AND talent to achieve at the highest level... if you don't have enough either talent OR practice, you will be mediocre. But just because it's obvious like water is wet, there will always be some contrarian somewhere who claims the opposite, so you do have to have studies from the Department Of The Bleeding Obvious.
 
May be obvious...but in subjective things such as music, sometimes and very very often in fact PURE RAW GENETIC ability doesn't matter. Yngwie Malmsteen can outplay just about anybody.....on a technical level. But his songs do not connect. Bob Dylan can't sing....but holy hell, he connected with people. Kurt Cobain played mostly 3 and 4 chord songs, but Nirvana connected, same as countless numbers of artists. At the same time, other musicians are super technically gifted AND connect. There is no way to measure what will connect based on talent alone. Some of the genius comes from just being aware of what that "thing" is....and isn't based on how many scales/notes/modes/key changes are applied to a song.
Sometimes the flaws in the artist help make the artist.
 
rsbush said:
Environment, opportunity and amount of time/work are better predictors. Basically his premise is: talent alone gets you nowhere.
Click to expand...

People may have voices to sing. This does not make them singers. They need dedication, education and a ton of good luck. People may croak like a toad. They may develop something of a singing voice by dedication and education. "Everybody can sing" they say. But they hardly ever can become singers in professional terms. But maybe they will be extremely good and able talent scouts or teachers or choir leaders because they have learned so much about singing.

There is something to be said for making a calculation of energy input versus resulting output. If people find it hard to write, thats okay. Comes with the job. But if people never have the experience of "flow" while writing, that it also is a joyful thing for them at times, they should start becoming a bit suspicious.

Our brains are precious little organs. And some of this incredibly fine tuned structures seem to find it more easy to connect the results of what happens in the cortex with the deeper structures in the brain stem. Call it intellect and the institutions of the sub-conscience. The deep, the inner voice, the tectonic plates shifting on emotions.

Maybe "talent" has a lot to do with that connection - the ease people whom we call "talented" have to skate between those areas, make connections, even such they do not need to understand consciously. At times you meet writing teams where those two areas are represented by the two writers to a certain extend: One may be the more playful guy who is sparkling with ideas, the other is the hard working architect building the structure.

Clearly its possible to train your brain. But only to a certain extend. Thats the pitty of highly intelligent people who know very, very much about writing but don't really have "it". And this is the at times cruel fascination of watching extremly talented people - who at times may be morons or character-dwarfs - and see with envy how they just churn stuff out easily.

The really hard part is finding out for yourself if you just have not tried enough or if you do the perennial Sisyphus. And sometimes we will not know until our work life ends.... ;-)

So - go on. We have no chances other than to take them.
 
OldCorpse said:
In other words, if you are of average genetic potential in talent, you will top out with practice beyond a certain level, no matter how much you practice. Whereas those who have more talent will go further. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Err, no. You've drawn an incorrect conclusion from the study.

The study you referenced only proves that there is no causal relationship between "time spent practicing" and "final skill level." It states that some people are more effective at practicing than others. Nobody has disagreed with this.

What the study does not prove is that it is the result of genetics. A scientific experiment must isolate the variables before claiming causality. To isolate all the variables and test the causality of genetics, in this case, would require both individuals had undergone a lifetime of identical experiences. Impossible (well--just highly unethical).

It is possible that one musician or chess player has -learned- to practice better, to make more effective use of time. This isn't biological, it is developmental. It is nurture over nature. Nature might make some difference, and probably does, but the evidence doesn't confirm that hypothesis.

---

If two people spent 10 hours learning a brand new skill, say playing guitar, and one came out on top, obviously one of them is better. Why is it genetics? Maybe the worse guy was addicted to heroine, for instance. His 10 hours weren't very effective because of his lifestyle and history.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
May be obvious...but in subjective things such as music, sometimes and very very often in fact PURE RAW GENETIC ability doesn't matter. Yngwie Malmsteen can outplay just about anybody.....on a technical level. But his songs do not connect. Bob Dylan can't sing....but holy hell, he connected with people. Kurt Cobain played mostly 3 and 4 chord songs, but Nirvana connected, same as countless numbers of artists. At the same time, other musicians are super technically gifted AND connect. There is no way to measure what will connect based on talent alone. Some of the genius comes from just being aware of what that "thing" is....and isn't based on how many scales/notes/modes/key changes are applied to a song.
Sometimes the flaws in the artist help make the artist.
Click to expand...

I meant to give you a thumbs up, not a thumbs down. Sorry!

And yes, movies are art, not the SAT. We rate movies on scales, but that's a fake understanding of films. Bob Dylan is a good example, especially his early folk music. Folk music resonates because of its humanity, not because the people who wrote and played the music had raw genetic talent. It was honest, it was "true." It had a soul, a history, a life of its own. Genetics don't produce that--it's history and philosophy and ideology.
 
Barry_Green said:
Last I knew, the brain was a product of genetic material. And last I knew, there were absolutely intelligence differences among different people, even at birth. Some people are born with an artistic eye, some are born with the ability to grow tall, some can play musical instruments by ear, and some are born with other advantages -- or disadvantages. To deny this would be just plain silly; surely you recognize this?

Let's put it this way: you can make the very best of what you've got. And I believe that most people, who really try, will turn out better than genetically-gifted people who don't try. But to be a true great, as again was referenced in the beginning of this thread, takes a combination of potential, and working towards that potential relentlessly.
Click to expand...

Intelligence isn't one single score. Nobody understands the roots of intelligence yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

There are theories about types of intelligence. Having low "verbal" intelligence and high "logical" intelligence, for instance, would just make the flavor of a filmmaker. Some filmmakers are great with spacial intelligence and do super complicated camera blocking. Other filmmakers make mumblecore. Their brains at birth might push their abilities in certain directions, but since films are made up of so many types of intelligence, these genetic differences can't hold back a filmmaker's global filmmaking intelligence.

To imply there is one genetic category of intelligence for filmmaking also seems to contain the proposition that there can be a perfect film. I don't believe in a perfect film, or that one film will resonate with every viewer. Humanity is not a math problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top