10,000 hours

[Barry_Green]

Drew, I'm trying to follow you, but you're moving the goalposts. In one post you say "everyone is equally capable, and those that say they aren't are just being defeatists." And then in this post you're stating that some filmmakers may very well have high spatial intelligence -- implying (or stating) that others don't.

So which is it? Either there are folks that are more suited to the task, or there aren't.

I am firmly of the mindset that there are things you can fix with effort, practice, and training, and there's some things that you really do have to be born with. And yes, there are some things that people are born with, that other people aren't. I've known three people who could play any instrument, by ear. They could listen to a piano concerto, or a Jimi Hendrix riff, and then sit down to the piano or pick up a guitar and (largely) recreate it. And, furthermore, not one of the three could read a single note of sheet music. And their backgrounds and habits were wildly different -- one was a self-made businessman who subsequently ruined himself with drugs, one was the laziest do-nothing no-ambition entitlement-mindset teenager I've ever met, and one was a churchgoing mom who actually made excellent films, but ultimately didn't have the ambition, she wanted to just be a mom and play in a church band.

There is not a doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that those folks all possessed an innate gift that I, and most of us, simply do not have. Their brains are wired differently than mine (and, I'd dare say, differently than most of us). There absolutely *is* such a thing as being genetically, inherently "gifted". I happen to believe that we are all individually gifted with talents and abilities and interests that make us unique, and if we would but pursue those relentlessly, we would bring the most enjoyment and value to ourselves and to others. But that each person has different gifts (and different deficits) in different areas.

Can you overcome them? To a little degree. I had to play trumpet from 4th grade through 9th grade. Got pretty decent at it, was First Chair in my 9th grade band. Hated every second of it, and finally declared at the end of 9th grade that I simply wasn't going to do it anymore. I was no Herb Alpert, and was never going to be, and didn't want to be -- I kept at it only through pressure from my parents.

Hard work will get you somewhere. Hard work without talent will get you somewhere. Talent without hard work will get you nowhere. Hard work + talent is the formula for greatness. And, again, yes, there are those that are more talented than others, and while you can argue nature or nurture (and I think it's definitely a good dose of both) the fact of the matter is: you are who you are RIGHT NOW. And what heights you can achieve are dictated by what skills you have (both learned, and genetic) and by how hard you are willing to work.

 

[Drew Ott]

My DNA prevents me from being an offensive lineman. I'm not denying genetics.

It might clear things up by stating that filmmaking is not a performance art. It is a symphony of different skills. If "natural genetic talent" is lacking in one area, it will shape the outcome, but it will not prevent somebody from ever becoming a storyteller. If I lack in acoustic genetic talent, my films might not have much focus on audio, but will make up for it with my strength in visual talent. There's no singular 'path' to filmmaking. It's too huge of a mixture of talents.

I took piano lessons. I had a lot of difficulty for the first 5 years and hated it. My friends were all better than me. I reached a point where I started having fun, found my own style, and began writing music. My friends who also kept with it, many of them, are still more technically proficient than me, but I know there is an audience of people who would prefer to listen to my playing. Once I reached a level of skill where I could be "honest" and play with feeling, it became a matter of taste.

Think about a guy like Harmony Korine. The dude's probably not very "genetically talented" by any standard. But he's crazy and he's confident about it. He's doing pretty well for himself, last I checked.

If I have bad spacial intelligence, I might have to lean on my cinematographer to lead the way in camera blocking. But I can make up for that with my wild temperament, which could inspire much better acting than Stephen Hawking ever could.

Is that any clearer? I don't mean to say I don't believe DNA shape us. It's like I said before, it gives us variety, but it doesn't turn some people into turtles.


edited to add--
I'm using terms like "acoustic genetic talent" to explain things from within your paradigm, but I still believe my understanding of psychosocial development and philosophy of life are more explanatory than this theory of talent.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I believe the reason this debate is so difficult to have with respect to film making and even screen writing, is that film making is the most collaborative art form of them all. There may be some dude in Iowa typing up works of total genius. He has the talent, he works hard, he submits his work...he networks...but we will never see a single page on the screen.

There could be a thousand reasons why. It could be that films on the whole are made in a system that wants to capture a certain demographic, which narrows the field of material that will "work". Yeah, maybe he gets funding for an indie film...but the director is not right for the story or maybe the director is good but the actors don't pull it off, or maybe the producers take his work and turn it to garbage. Or maybe the whole thing is good, but it just goes largely unseen. So he continues to write but life goes on...has to pay the bills, so he becomes a staff writer somewhere. Or worse quits altogether.

This can happen in other art forms as well, but with films....the staggering amount of variables make any one theory of success impossible. Luck, who you know, how hard you work, talent, interpersonal charisma, the talent of others, persistence, funding...the list goes on and on and on.

 

[OldCorpse]

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.

Actually no, the study does not prove that there 'is no causal relationship between "time spent practicing" and "final skill level"' - there definitely is... if you practice more, you WILL get better, you will just stop improving at some point compared to someone else; if there was NO causal relationship, then you would have a random distribution between length of practice and skill level - and that is definitely not true, because more=better (with different upper limits). And it does not state that some are more effective at practicing, it states that practice has a differential effect on different people - two people can go to the same teacher and be taught the same method and practice the same amount, but one will end up with a different level of skill... that was not the result of one being more effective at practicing, but the result of a different effect of the same amount of practice. Indeed, we know this to be trivially true, because we see it demonstrated in real life: a differential skill level with NO practice - when introduced to a discipline FOR THE FIRST TIME (i.e. there is as yet ZERO practice), one person takes to it like a duck to water, and another may have serious difficulties despite copious instruction. We've seen it over, and over again - so clearly this is not due to "more effective practice", since there was none... in popular parlance we refer to such people as "s/he's a natural".

To me what's fascinating is how ideologically derived expectations are quickly disproved by real life. We've all been there. We come from different backgrounds and have our biases which lead us to expect this or that. But reality doesn't care about our theories, it exists regardless. We can tell ourselves that "everyone is equally talented" - and as a young idealist, I certainly was taught that. But then you go out into the real world, and a lot of what we are taught may not stand up to real life.

The issue of exceptional talent, to me, one such example. I don't know about you, but I've seen this in action. A few kids gathered around a chessboard - everyone hears the same explanation about how the pieces move, and one kid just absolutely dominates - instinctively grasping relationships the other kids never will, no matter how much they practice.

But to bring it back to film. One thing that confounds some folks, is that in cases such as chess or math, the criterion of who is good and who is not is very stark - you either win or solve the problem, or you don't. However in art, there are all sorts of subjective criteria and so it would seem you could never have such a thing as "talented director", because as many here claim, it's too collaborative an art form, or too many elements and you can excel in one or compensate in another etc.. All I can say to that, is the experience of real life. I have spent a number of years working at one of the big three talent agencies in LA. I have seen a ton of submissions and have seen a ton of work and attended masses of festivals and film school shows. What can I tell you - when real talent appears, and I mean a MAJOR talent, you will know it, and everyone in the room will see it in unison... one gasp will go through the crowd. It is RARE. Mostly what happens is that you sit through a showing with various skill levels and sure you can pick this or that, but really, it does feel a little arbitrary and a matter of taste. But let me tell you - when a giant enters, everyone sits up. There just isn't any doubt. Trouble is, it's so rare, you may go through a whole career and never encounter it, so you naturally reach the conclusion "it's all luck", or "it's all hard work", or whatever. But the work of real talent is on such a level that it's not something you can teach. You either have it, or you don't. Now, you may not believe me, and hold onto some idealistic position, but reality doesn't care about either of our opinions.

In my experience, talent absolutely exists in the world of filmmaking, including directing - talent that cannot be taught, that cannot be compensated for, that cannot be gainsaid. That's my 2 cents of experience.

 

[pulpfiction007]

The problem is - the Coen Bros make me watch in awe. To others, they are just weird. That's why the debate is really kind of pointless. It's way too subjective. Some say Avatar is a masterpiece, I could not for the life of me sit through it. Of course talent exists that can't be taught, BUT sometimes the one with great natural talent falls flat on their face. The other one, who has some ability and who pushes 110% succeeds. Even in something that isn't subjective, there are tons of variables....like the NFL
Ryan Leaf - FAILURE (50% claimed he was better than Peyton Manning, all the natural gifts in the world)
Peyton Manning - SUCCESS, a Mozart of football if you will
Tom Brady - 7th round draft pick, not real fast, not a superior arm, not a HUGE natural talent. Worked his ass off and destroyed anything Ryan Leaf ever did.

It's not an anomaly either. There are good numbers of examples of players who get picked in the late rounds who surpass the "elite" talents of the higher picks. Based on what? Usually it's that they work freaking harder.

 

[Fluoro]

I believe the reason this debate is so difficult to have with respect to film making and even screen writing, is that film making is the most collaborative art form of them all. There may be some dude in Iowa typing up works of total genius. He has the talent, he works hard, he submits his work...he networks...but we will never see a single page on the screen.

There could be a thousand reasons why. It could be that films on the whole are made in a system that wants to capture a certain demographic, which narrows the field of material that will "work". Yeah, maybe he gets funding for an indie film...but the director is not right for the story or maybe the director is good but the actors don't pull it off, or maybe the producers take his work and turn it to garbage. Or maybe the whole thing is good, but it just goes largely unseen. So he continues to write but life goes on...has to pay the bills, so he becomes a staff writer somewhere. Or worse quits altogether.

This can happen in other art forms as well, but with films....the staggering amount of variables make any one theory of success impossible. Luck, who you know, how hard you work, talent, interpersonal charisma, the talent of others, persistence, funding...the list goes on and on and on.

Great post.

 

[Guest]

My DNA prevents me from being an offensive lineman. I'm not denying genetics.

...If "natural genetic talent" is lacking in one area, it will shape the outcome, but it will not prevent somebody from ever becoming a storyteller. If I lack in acoustic genetic talent, my films might not have much focus on audio, but will make up for it with my strength in visual talent. There's no singular 'path' to filmmaking. It's too huge of a mixture of talents.

There is a bit of wary logic in these kinds of arguments. People very readily admit to not being able to be a Basketball player, or some other sport, but few allow themselves that simple answer in many other areas of life.


An offensive lineman is a very specific task, whereas a "story teller" is a very broad thing, not just in style, but also in that it does not describe a status of career. You cooould be a lineman on your church flag-football team. Yes? In the same way, annnnyyyyyone can be a "story teller" but few will make much money from it, few will top tier professionals, and even fewer will be famous for it.

So already there, without shrinking the scope of "story teller", we have reduced the pool of people that fit the newer description by millions.

Than you have to describe what kind of story teller that person is.... get the picture? (pun intended)

You may not be able to be a lineman, but you could potentially be a play analyst....? All in the same sport/profession right????

People say CINEMA is collaborative, but also say well, "I could never be a center in the NBA..." Well, the NBA is an extremely collaborative business, and takes all kinds - ALL kinds of people to make the sport happen. So, saying anyone could be a movie maker is like saying anyone can be in the NBA. Very broad and not very helpful to the person that wants to be a cinematographer at the highest level, but hasn't even taken the first step yet.

So, saying anyone can be a movie maker is factually incorrect in the way it is usually argued, and oversimplified examples and generalizations do not make it any more or less true. Some people are better and some people work harder. And some people are both better and work harder, and some people are luckier.

A fool is born every minute, and there will always be money for those that make crap films. Just where are those expectations at? Specify. Generality allows for too much error.

Anyone can be play a part in the cinema industry. Everyone can be a story teller. But not everyone is going to be making good films, and fewer are going make influential films, and fewer are going to be the directors of those films, and fewer of them will actually become legends for it.



(sorry, Drew, I know you have more thoughts on the subject than what I have quoted, not meaning to cherry pick.)

 

[Guest]

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.

Again, a wonderful idea without a concrete focus that helps us move forward in the debate.


True, there is no single score for intelligence. But there are people that are better at taking SAT's than others. That is because the SAT test is a specific constant. The term Filmaking is not exactly a specific constant. Intelligence is not either.

You are taking the argument outside the confines of anything specific, which does not help.

I do not know of any filmmaker (ok, auteur director, to give something that is slightly more close to a specific constant....), mumble core or hitchcockian, that does not have an immense ability to pre-visualize a story in a way that is compelling in the medium, even if they are not aware that they are doing that. But in order to get their film made they additionally need another set of people skills. So, the specifics begin to creep in and lines are drawn in the sand, eventually. And then, there really are predispositions, natures, and abilities that separate us.

 

[Barry_Green]

An offensive lineman is a very specific task, whereas a "story teller" is a very broad thing, not just in style, but also in that it does not describe a status of career. You cooould be a lineman on your church flag-football team. Yes? In the same way, annnnyyyyyone can be a "story teller" but few will make much money from it, few will top tier professionals, and even fewer will be famous for it.

Dang, James, you hit the nail so hard on the head that you cooouuuld be a carpenter if you wanted!

A fool is born every minute, and there will always be money for those that make crap films. Just where are those expectations at? Specify. Generality allows for too much error.

That's always been my problem with those who make their first "feature" film, and insist on calling it a "feature". A feature is the headlining bill that people pay money to see, not just 90 minutes of whatever you were able to put together on a desktop NLE.

If the discussion is -- "anyone can make a movie, and if you talk yourself out if it then you're just a defeatist" -- well, sure. Obviously we can all agree to that. But that wasn't the discussion here. The discussion here was -- what does it take to become GREAT? Finishing a 90-minute horror film does not make one great. It is the filmmaking equivalent of completing an American Idol audition, nothing more. The judges haven't even voted yet as to whether you get through to the next round, you've just auditioned. There are (or have been), on average, about 120,000 people who audition for American Idol. Of those, about 0.1% are deemed good enough to go through to the second round, Hollywood Week. Meaning, 99.9% of those who audition for American Idol really aren't good enough to even consider for the second round. Is that an accurate reflection of the state of filmmaking? Sadly, yes -- or, at least, screenwriting. 99.9% of screenplays are simply unreadable.

Of the (average) 120 American Idol auditioners who do make it to Hollywood week, only 10% of them will make it to the Top 12. Probably a parallel here; of the 0.1% of screenplays that are readable, probably only about 10% of those are optioned/bought.

Of the American Idol auditioners who make it to the top 12, only one will win (about 10%). Is that applicable to the film industry? Yep, of that 10% of scripts that are optioned or even bought, probably about only 10% of those will ever get made.

Of the American Idol winners, how many of them are "great"? Arguably, none. But there are a few successes, to some degree or other. Only two of the 12 have had any sort of lasting success, being Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson. The rest of them have appeared, shone, flamed out, and disappeared. Lee DeWyze? Kris Allen? Ruben Studdard? Fantasia? Who?

Again continuing the analogy, of those few films that get made, how many are actually good? How many Shawshank Redemptions get made, vs. the number of Pluto Nashes? How many Hollywood films are really good, and stick around? Again, I'd wager, 5% to 10%.

So, continuing the analogy again -- are Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood "great"? If I was going to name some female singers that would be among the greats, I'd include Aretha Franklin, Diana Ross, Karen Carpenter, Barbra Streisand, etc. Will Kelly Clarkson be remembered among them? I doubt it, but she has been somewhat successful for a period of years.

Likewise, will "Despicable Me 2" (tops at the box office, and a great film in its own right) be remembered alongside The Godfather? Probably not.

Anyone can be play a part in the cinema industry. Everyone can be a story teller. But not everyone is going to be making good films, and fewer are going make influential films, and fewer are going to be the directors of those films, and fewer of them will actually become legends for it.

Exactly. And this thread, at least the original premise of it, was -- what does it take to become great. A Mozart. A Larry Bird. Not just good, but great. And I say 10,000 hours of hard work in a field will indeed get you into the good, perhaps the "very good" category. Far better than most people. As to whether that will get you to the level of "great", I don't think so. Unless you have "it", you may never be a legend, a great. But you will never know unless you put the work in. And putting the work in will make you better than just about everyone else, so -- if this field is what you want to work in, you've got to put in the effort. And if you've got actual talent too, then that's an ideal combination.

 

[Drew Ott]

The points being brought up about probability I agree with. I'm with you about the 1% of 1% of 1% thing. I understand a person has to be exceptional, incredibly rare, to be great. But not at birth. Again, once somebody isolates the exclusive genetic code that only auteur filmmakers have, I'll agree with you guys.

The potentials of humanity cannot be explained entirely with the scientist's microscope. The natural scientist's model of the world is small and cheap any literally meaningless.

Cinema, real cinema, does not come from "selfish genes" or "survival and reproduction" or "social/cultural/economic capital."

Camerawork and film editing began through experiments. Over time we realized that cinema was like dreaming. Editing worked because that's how we dream. It is intuitive, not scientific.

Your arguments imply that DNA + practice = Goethe/Shakespeare/Mozart

Perhaps I have odd opinions about what makes a good film. I'm looking for humanity, truth, soul, resonance, etc.

You can keep your dollars and IMDb scores and red carpets.


I'm just having fun. On my phone. Brevity makes me even more of an ass.

 

[Charli]

Practice + Practice = maybe great
"IT" + Practice = To infinity and beyond

Drew - You want "IT" defined. "IT" cannot be defined, you either have "IT" or you don't. Those who do, it is RECOGNIZABLE to those who watch, listen, or read the work of that individual. That's why Simon Cowell looks for "IT" and seldom finds this in a singer.

IT - is beyond DNA, it's within your soul and that Drew, cannot be defined.

 

[nycineaste]

don't worry about "it" you cant control....er..."it". also, most people simply don't work hard enough. I have folders on my hard drive full of still shots of scenes, analyzed shot by shot for their editing construction (see my sig for where I come from). I watch the scene on my pc, pause, then copy the frame into MS paint, number and save in a folder. I know stuff about editing you wont learn in filmmaking books. My last short aint genius or nuthin (Ill post here soon) but the editing rocks hardcore. Someone on this thread mentioned Orson Welles watching stagecoach 40 times,,,,,hmm.....theres a lil secret there maybe.....hmmmm???? Its called.....INVENT AND DO BRUTAL, TEDIOUS, MIND NUMINGLY TEDIOUS, FOCUSED EXERCISES and youll be shocked how you can make little "jumps" up the skill ladder. Ever analyze a movies plot with graph paper and pen, looking for a technique from your fave screenwriting book? I do that for fun. Fight hard for your skills!

 

[Drew Ott]

Drew - You want "IT" defined. "IT" cannot be defined, you either have "IT" or you don't. Those who do, it is RECOGNIZABLE to those who watch, listen, or read the work of that individual. That's why Simon Cowell looks for "IT" and seldom finds this in a singer.

IT - is beyond DNA, it's within your soul and that Drew, cannot be defined.

I'm going to sum up all my arguments concisely.

1. The idea that DNA + practice = genius is bogus. There are more variables in human creativity than just DNA and time.

2. The idea that "you either have it or you don't" is a cliche without content. Linguistically that phrase is meaningless. The word "it" means nothing. Are we talking about magic? A human soul? God? DNA? To keep pointing to "it" means there is something. That something must be more complex than the word "it," right?

3. We do not understand the genius of the Bergmans and Kubricks of the world. But we can try. This is what I have been trying to do. I admit not knowing the full answer. The truth is mysterious, unknown. But we can at least ask questions, right? We can hunt for these answers to make ourselves better, otherwise we're giving up.

4. I've suggested genius has something to do with psychosocial development and philosophy of life. This is a fairly comprehensive understanding of all the developmental and educational processes an individual goes through. I can't believe nobody has suggested that personal experiences, childhood, relationships, religious/nonreligious beliefs, etc. have anything to do with a person's storytelling. How can we look out at the infinite variability of the universe and call all we don't know "it"?

 

[Rolf Silber]

How can we look out at the infinite variability of the universe and call all we don't know "it"?

Exactly because our mind can not work with infinite variabilities we call it "it". It's a place holder for something that's not (yet) definable, because we know not enough about how and why our brains work the way they do.

Clearly all you say - personal experience et al - are the basic requisites of storytelling. But what at least I mean with "talent" is the heightened, above average ability of combining and recombining these. This is when at times my envy kicks in: You meet that guy who is a lazy dog and yet he spits out five or more pages of nearly pristine dialogue in just one afternoon.

And I am out of here...

 

[Drew Ott]

Exactly because our mind can not work with infinite variabilities we call it "it". It's a place holder for something that's not (yet) definable, because we know not enough about how and why our brains work the way they do.

Clearly all you say - personal experience et al - are the basic requisites of storytelling. But what at least I mean with "talent" is the heightened, above average ability of combining and recombining these. This is when at times my envy kicks in: You meet that guy who is a lazy dog and yet he spits out five or more pages of nearly pristine dialogue in just one afternoon.

And I am out of here...

Thank you. Makes much more sense. I agree.

 

[Guest]

I'm going to sum up all my arguments concisely.

1. The idea that DNA + practice = genius is bogus. There are more variables in human creativity than just DNA and time.

You are right. No one would argue against you there. You just keep rephrasing the argument. I would put the combo more like.... DNA + practice + environment (input, exposure, experiences etc...) + will + convictions + (the match between all these and the chance that they merge with the end goal) = genius Maybe more, ha, but Rolf already put "it" really well. The unexplained variables. We are just saying DNA or 'it', plays a part, and without that part, the likelihood is null. But without defining the exact function the person is trying to be "great" at, arguing what ingredients are necessary is silly. And you will not get anywhere if you keep rephrasing the argument (unless you are pitching a sale). I hope I am not rephrasing the argument....haha.

2. The idea that "you either have it or you don't" is a cliche without content. Linguistically that phrase is meaningless. The word "it" means nothing. Are we talking about magic? A human soul? God? DNA? To keep pointing to "it" means there is something. That something must be more complex than the word "it," right?

3. We do not understand the genius of the Bergmans and Kubricks of the world. But we can try. This is what I have been trying to do. I admit not knowing the full answer. The truth is mysterious, unknown. But we can at least ask questions, right? We can hunt for these answers to make ourselves better, otherwise we're giving up.

4. I've suggested genius has something to do with psychosocial development and philosophy of life. This is a fairly comprehensive understanding of all the developmental and educational processes an individual goes through. I can't believe nobody has suggested that personal experiences, childhood, relationships, religious/nonreligious beliefs, etc. have anything to do with a person's storytelling. How can we look out at the infinite variability of the universe and call all we don't know "it"?

"Everyone is a genius in their own right" is what I feel like you are getting at. I would agree with that. (and I am pretty sure I am rephrasing the argument there.)

 

[Guest]

don't worry about "it" you cant control....er..."it". also, most people simply don't work hard enough. I have folders on my hard drive full of still shots of scenes, analyzed shot by shot for their editing construction (see my sig for where I come from). I watch the scene on my pc, pause, then copy the frame into MS paint, number and save in a folder. I know stuff about editing you wont learn in filmmaking books. My last short aint genius or nuthin (Ill post here soon) but the editing rocks hardcore. Someone on this thread mentioned Orson Welles watching stagecoach 40 times,,,,,hmm.....theres a lil secret there maybe.....hmmmm???? Its called.....INVENT AND DO BRUTAL, TEDIOUS, MIND NUMINGLY TEDIOUS, FOCUSED EXERCISES and youll be shocked how you can make little "jumps" up the skill ladder. Ever analyze a movies plot with graph paper and pen, looking for a technique from your fave screenwriting book? I do that for fun. Fight hard for your skills!

I like your sig quote. Well worded.

 

[alex whitmer]

Okay, so enough refs to the talent contests to toss this in (I'm a real groupie for BGT and AGT).

This girl ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJtWxIgarYQ

... and here ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpMn5okLJzY

All arguments considered, I'd say she has IT, whatever IT is. She's 10. - maybe she had a birthday between performances because they are now calling her 11. Regardless, I gotta laugh when she says 'When I was a kid ....'.

First of all, she doesn't look or sound like any 10/11 year old I've ever met. Her confidence and maturity is an IT all unto itself. So, that aside, what if we were to take away the fact that she grew up with a piano in the house? Would we be listening to this now? Impossible to say. If she really had IT, would she have known intrinsically and sought out a piano somewhere - anywhere - just to practice? Is the piano really the catalyst at all? Is it the singing that counts? You can sing anywhere.

I would argue the piano was a part of the development of the IT talent, just like a writer might find some comfort in pounding the typewriter keys, whether or not he or she is writing anything at all. One can stand on a mountain top and tell stories. Toss in a typewriter, and watch what happens.

Same idea here, so yeah, it's not just being born with it. The envirionment in which one grows up and finds that talent does matter. And access to a catalyst does influence when and how - if at all - a talent will come to fruition, or at least in the sense of 10,000 hours. A true master never stops growing. They are never satisfied. Be it a paint brush, a computer, a keyboard, a pile of rocks, seasonings, dance floor, garage, a hammer, a basketball or a camera.

What about these 2 performances make us sit back and ask what just happened? What is it about her that makes us shift our paradigms on what it means to be 10?

How much of her is DNA, how much is environment, and how much is dedication to craft? How much of it is IT? Take away any one part and will the whole thing be meh?

Like Howie said, 'There is an old soul withing you' Maybe that's the IT.

What about this guy? Does he have IT? Or IT-ish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc41LWRFqZM

a

 

[Name's Luke Y'all]

For what's it worth, I hit the the 10g mark in screenwriting about a year and half ago, and feel I have only begun the journey.

Defined how?

Hours actually writing?

Thinking about it?

Watching movies?

Analyzing films?

 

[alex whitmer]

Writing. And that doesn't include the reseach, the thinking about it, the watching of movies (actually I rarely watch 'em). I'm thinking maybe the IT part doesn't apply to me. Rats.

a