Are there any directors out there telling stories?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I think what you're running into on here, and what I've talked about before with some people, is this technophile age where technology has become so accessible that literally anyone has the tools to create a "film". They study up on gear and what it does, what's the newest hottest thing, etc. etc. So then they go out a shoot things, and when they do they say they directed it, and that they are directors. But realistically they are shooters, and the things they talk about are things that matter most to a shooter. I find it extremely rare when I post a clip or video or even a short that I get any notes on actors performance, story, pacing, etc... because people don't dedicate the kind of time to learning those ideas that they do to learning about gear.

I do sort of disagree with some elements of this... it has always been the case that many films have 'technical' aspects that are superior to its story, or the acting talent employed. Any brief review of either 'serials', or 'b-films', suggest that in many cases the image on screen was 'technically good', but the story and acting fell through the floor.

The technology of digitial didn't bring with it 'bad films'... it may have just 'spread the wealth' as it were...

Furthermore, not 'learning' the technology of image production, leaves one at the mercy of others... while it may be that someone whose goal is to become a director need not spend 10-15 years in the trenches of DoP-ing... but learning the craft to be able to evaluate others work, I think does benefit... to me, the place were a future director may spend quite a bit of time, is in the editing room...

For a film with a budget, the director is more of a manager with a 'vision', than an actual technical worker. But until one gets a budget... or some good friends with superior skills... it will be that the 'director' most likely does more than just direct the action of others.

On the topic of critiqueing 'performances'... well, since most people at this level are getting actors 'gratis'... I don't think there will be a case where the critiques would be much more than 'get pro actors'... a frequent enough heard piece of advise for any category of 'film work'...

A 'bad actor' can still be used to learn blocking, camera placement, framing, sound production, etc... and so at some level 'actor's performance' is pretty much low on the list of 'controllable' items.

One can of course 'advise' with 'perhaps you should have had more rehearsals', or 'perhaps you should have looked aorund more'... but again, without a 'pay' incentive, very frequently one has to just take what is given...

Even with a budgeted film, getting 'good actors' for 'next to nothing' is difficult. Any review of Roger Corman's collective opus, suggests that while in some cases he had 'future mega stars' on his films, either in front of the camera or behind... in far more cases, he had 'talent' that was never seen again... for good 'reason'...

 

[seanmcleod]

Man you put a lot of stuff in 'quotes', haha...

I agree with what you're saying I do think your best chance at succeeding is to be well versed in all aspects of filmmaking... what I was saying is that I feel like certain factors contribute to most newcomers focusing on the technical side vs. the creative side. So much so that everyone wants shallow DOF and will fight like hell to achieve it, but never question whether or not the shot needs that lack of depth to help tell the story. Thats when the technical overtakes the creative. And yes there are many reasons why a production will be lacking some of the amenities of a well financed film, but that doesn't mean the director should just be satisfied with what he gets, he should have an understanding of what it takes to polish that turd!!! I'm joking but the key is having the tools to make the best possible product out of what your given, and that's not all to do with what camera you have.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I will agree that certain techniques gain the status of a fetish. DoF being one, ultrawide screen being another (my personal preference being deep focus and 1.66-1.85 ratios...). These are sort of based on certain technical aesthetics, as well as how I view the word.

For me 'quoted' material gives a clear indication that such words refer to things which have significant subjective evaluations.

 

[ZetKey]

I know a lot of people who are here, in this visual a little more than story place, or a "weak visuals absolutely can and will destroy any story" place, but they cannot articulate why. They have no reference.

Cannot articalate why? Why my favourite color is green and not red? I don't know why. I just like green. Ok, back to visuals. I am big fan of comics. I drew comics myself, many many hundreds of pages before I shifted my hobby to filmmaking. And how I choose which comics to read and to collect? By artwork! I love few comics artists which visual style I admire, no matter what stories they are telling. So, if comics is drawn in style which I don't like - I don't read that comics book, no matter how smart the story is.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Cannot articalate why? Why my favourite color is green and not red? I don't know why. I just like green. Ok, back to visuals. I am big fan of comics. I drew comics myself, many many hundreds of pages before I shifted my hobby to filmmaking. And how I choose which comics to read and to collect? By artwork! I love few comics artists which visual style I admire, no matter what stories they are telling. So, if comics is drawn in style which I don't like - I don't read that comics book, no matter how smart the story is.

Yeah, but that's comics; movies are different (as proven by the sheer number of horrible comic to film adaptations). Look, I liked the visuals of Godzilla when it came out, but the movie is terrible and I can say why... the story sucked. GI Joe has pretty pictures but the story sucked and the acting was terrible. Avatar was visually stunning, but it was a boring movie because the story was hackneyed and redundant (to me). Did they make money, absolutely. Is there value in making commercial movies that appease visually but may not have the best story, absolutely; but that wasn't the question...

I will agree that certain techniques gain the status of a fetish. DoF being one, ultrawide screen being another (my personal preference being deep focus and 1.66-1.85 ratios...). These are sort of based on certain technical aesthetics, as well as how I view the word.

I am a 2.35/2.39 man myself, I can blame Star Wars, which was 2.20, Indiana Jones, and a number of other movies for falling in love with that look, and you're right, it's a fetish for me.

Look, let me be honest, I used to kill myself trying to tell stories in this or that aspect ratio, or with this or that visual convention, but I realized that I was using these tools as a crutch, as an excuse to put just anything up on the screen as long as it looked pretty and big (epic). Early on, I also realized that nobody was understanding my stuff, and I couldn't answer questions about my stuff. I pulled the, "Oh, I'm an artist and I do it that way because that's my style," thing but it was horsesh*t. I had no idea why I was doing it. I didn't know why certain images were on the screen. That was a problem. Ok, there are people who can pontificate for hours about why they made this choice or that choice, but you know what, they really didn't know what they were doing, nobody got it, and waxing poetic just made the whole thing worse. That's a problem. I don't think it's OK to string images together without due diligence given to the story and I don't care whether you are doing an art house flick or a blatantly commercial thing, it (story) needs to be addressed and it is just as, if not more important that the visuals because story should inform, shape, create and give meaning to the images.

I think it's a symptom of a larger issue that needs to be addressed, and although the quote above about liking the color green was cute, there are people, alot of people, who can tell you that it evokes a certain feeling, it reminds them of a place or a season, it has a smell, it brings back an emotion or a passion, and that is story around a visual, pushing, informing, giving meaning and giving depth to just a frequency on a spectrum.

/Rant

 

[Rolf Silber]

No, but I do consider them different movies... There is a certain amount of irony there... in comparing the two...

Yes. And I do not compare them in the sense that one is "better" than the other as both have come to see the light of a projector for very different reasons. I find the process of working with the more or less "same" dramatic set-up rather interesting and I like both results for what they are. While indeed the story lost imho a tremendous lot in the process of transformation, it also gained at some points I described.

But that has a reason that has to do with my biografy and may not really "travel" - being German I would have wanted our film-makers of a certain time (70's / 80's) to have learned a bit more not from Hollywood but from what the great Anglo-Saxon or French playwrights (and directors) had at times more than their German counterparts: Clear story structure, strong conflict, comprehensive development and catharsis.

So, in danger of committing a sacrilege, an influx of that would have helped the first film a bit and vice versa a less cheesy approach would have made the latter a much greater one. One of the things I found hard to devour with Wenders movie then was exactly why a lot of people love it: Handke's influence & material. I am completely allergic against Handke because as native German speaker there are only two approaches possible with his art - like it or leave it alone. I confess I belong to the latter group.

May have to explain that my love for the cinema is very broad, call it eclectic. I can fall in love with high art and with the lowest common dominator - if it is executed professionally I raise my hat.

Now that Bernd Eichinger is dead, one wonders who will take up the mantel of producing german films in English...

Impossible to say. I don't see people to fill his shoes. But won't discuss it, he is not even buried.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I found hard to devour with Wenders movie then was exactly why a lot of people love it: Handke's influence & material. I am completely allergic against Handke because as native German speaker there are only two approaches possible with his art - like it or leave it alone. I confess I belong to the latter group.

Well, there you have it we got Schwatzenecke, you got Handke and Jelinek...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

But that has a reason that has to do with my biografy and may not really "travel" - being German I would have wanted our film-makers of a certain time (70's / 80's) to have learned a bit more not from Hollywood but from what the great Anglo-Saxon or French playwrights (and directors) had at times more than their German counterparts: Clear story structure, strong conflict, comprehensive development and catharsis.

From my point of view, "Hollywood" was far more influenced by early german film, and during the 3rd Reich period many german emigres came to live permanently in the US. To me the post-war german film as exemplified by Fassbinder (speaking of artist one has to 'take or leave'...), who seemed to almost avoid any of the older generation and the association with the NSDAP period, despite that most of the 'talented' people went to Hollywood... perhaps Fassbinder and Co.'s reaction may have been sort of the youth who doesn't want to be like the parents, or the 'guardian' as seen by the US involvement in Germany after the
war. This of course is just conjecture on my part.

Even more interesting is the French New Wave was influenced by Hollywood, and was a 'reaction' to the then 'french' style...

 

[Rolf Silber]

Can one really do a poetic film in America?

I'd think that A THIN RED LINE at least in my book is - apart from being a war movie - also a very poetic one....

Let me just say: I do not like to look at movies from the point of an dichotomy between the high and the low - there are a lot of interesting creatures living in the void between art and commerce.

Confessed though: I am an addicted eclecticist . I can see interesting structures in TARZAN by Disney and still love STALKER by Tarkovskji a lot. They all belong to the great cinematic zoo for me..... but, this is not what this thread is about.....

 

[Rolf Silber]

Well, there you have it we got Schwatzenecke, you got Handke and Jelinek...

But you have great authors too..... and sometimes we fall in love with the authors from a foreign country more than with our own... I am proof for that... ;-)

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

narrative beats --- read till there's a change -- mark it
you need no special skills to identify this change, it will be subject, emotion, or intent based - intent based is the most fruitful / active.

A character might feel betrayed the whole scene, for example, but might try several different tactics to "get even" with his / her betrayer in the scene (each would be a change). Or the character may start wanting revenge, but end the scene deciding to let bygones be bygones - that would be a major change and probably the "point" of the scene and essential to the narrative. So that "wanting revenge" then deciding to forgive, is the desire, want, motivation. The tactic / action / or intent could be many things on top of that. Say the character is in a scene with another gang member. He wants to kill a member of a rival gang that killed one of theirs. But the leader of his gang, says that nows not the time for revenge. So now our character has to pretend to be OK with not getting revenge - that's a tactic or intent change in the scene - that character may have started the scene wanting revenge and his tactic to get it was to fire up the other gang members and convince the leader, but he ends the scene still wanting revenge but having changed to a new tactic part way through - to convince the other gang members and the leader that he's not going to take revenge, even though he really is. Why - because if he stays adamant about getting his revenge, the leader will shut him down, maybe kill him for defying him. So he has to pretend not to want revenge / to be loyal to the leader, in order to get what he wants. When he gives up the old tactic and begins a new tactic would be the most common / actor driven way to think of a change in a scene.



Character's begin with small talk - then
"Look Johnny what I really asked you here for - well it's about your wife"
BEAT - you can mark the beat before or after such a line, depends if the speaker changes intention to deliver the line, or if the previous dialogue / action has been a build up to the line and then the line changes the air in the scene. They won't all be that obvious, but just start with a pencil and read down until you think there's a change.



label each beat - see what's important - think almost binary. That which is important is a 1, the rest - 0's.

Label each beat with a point, label the scene with a point, one scene one point. The beats in the scene serve the one point of the scene (the reason it's existence is justified in the screenplay). The point of each scene serves the point of each act. The point of each act serves the overall point, log line, theme of the movie.

So you've broken your scene into beats, labelled each, and found the point / reason the scene's in the screenplay. Now you have a point. Make sure it gets a across (however subtlety or ostentatiously is up to you) in the scene. Make all your camera, framing, lighting, editing, sound design, acting choices, every choice to that end.

Always ask - "to what end"? When reading the scene, and when acting on your intuitive hunches - why does it "feel" like the scene should be dark and smokey? Yes that's cool but does it support the emotional and / or narrative point of the scene? etc.

 

[Rolf Silber]

perhaps Fassbinder and Co.'s reaction may have been sort of the youth who doesn't want to be like the parents, or the 'guardian' as seen by the US involvement in Germany after the
war. This of course is just conjecture on my part.

But perfectly right. The "Young German Cinema" was exactly a reaction to what the proponents of the "tearjerker cartel" had bombarded the audience with in the early 50's to the 60's in western Germany. And lot of those old guys had been heavily involved with the old Nazi-UFA. The Young German Film tried to find it's own space and did it rather successful.

For us, coming a bit later, it was hard then to find some ground between this two factions because we dearly wanted to make films both different from the cheesy and stupid "Heimatfilm" but also different from Fassbinder's stuff...... actually we wanted to make films more like Billy Wilder or Lubitsch again.... But this would be a different thread altogether.....

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I think what you're running into on here, and what I've talked about before with some people, is this technophile age where technology has become so accessible that literally anyone has the tools to create a "film". They study up on gear and what it does, what's the newest hottest thing, etc. etc. So then they go out a shoot things, and when they do they say they directed it, and that they are directors. But realistically they are shooters, and the things they talk about are things that matter most to a shooter. I find it extremely rare when I post a clip or video or even a short that I get any notes on actors performance, story, pacing, etc... because people don't dedicate the kind of time to learning those ideas that they do to learning about gear.

I'll admit too that I've been a member here for a pretty long time but very rarely go into this section... so I'm just as much to blame although i do try to bring up these points when discussing other's work. I think what it boils down to is that a lot of people want to be directors, but few study the art of it, and what it means to actually be a DIRECTOR, and that's where we run off track. Also I think there's a reaction from an audience perspective that's only getting worse as better cameras are available for cheaper. A general audience will judge a book by it's cover, so if it looks terrible, with most people, you've already lost them. So there is an imbalanced emphasis on pretty pictures over story because of audience reaction.

A great resource to study the CRAFT of filmmaking and how to put the TECH into service of the NARRATIVE
Michael Rabbinger's directing book
http://www.amazon.com/Directing-Fou...-Screencraft/dp/0240808827/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
You can get older editions for much cheaper.
Includes discussion of how to get you out of aping other directors styles (as most of us start out dong) and strip everything away and start with the camera and the text and begin in service of the text.

I do sort of disagree with some elements of this... it has always been the case that many films have 'technical' aspects that are superior to its story, or the acting talent employed. Any brief review of either 'serials', or 'b-films', suggest that in many cases the image on screen was 'technically good', but the story and acting fell through the floor.

The technology of digitial didn't bring with it 'bad films'... it may have just 'spread the wealth' as it were...

Furthermore, not 'learning' the technology of image production, leaves one at the mercy of others... while it may be that someone whose goal is to become a director need not spend 10-15 years in the trenches of DoP-ing... but learning the craft to be able to evaluate others work, I think does benefit... to me, the place were a future director may spend quite a bit of time, is in the editing room...

For a film with a budget, the director is more of a manager with a 'vision', than an actual technical worker. But until one gets a budget... or some good friends with superior skills... it will be that the 'director' most likely does more than just direct the action of others.

On the topic of critiqueing 'performances'... well, since most people at this level are getting actors 'gratis'... I don't think there will be a case where the critiques would be much more than 'get pro actors'... a frequent enough heard piece of advise for any category of 'film work'...

A 'bad actor' can still be used to learn blocking, camera placement, framing, sound production, etc... and so at some level 'actor's performance' is pretty much low on the list of 'controllable' items.

One can of course 'advise' with 'perhaps you should have had more rehearsals', or 'perhaps you should have looked aorund more'... but again, without a 'pay' incentive, very frequently one has to just take what is given...

Even with a budgeted film, getting 'good actors' for 'next to nothing' is difficult. Any review of Roger Corman's collective opus, suggests that while in some cases he had 'future mega stars' on his films, either in front of the camera or behind... in far more cases, he had 'talent' that was never seen again... for good 'reason'...

Man you put a lot of stuff in 'quotes', haha...

I agree with what you're saying I do think your best chance at succeeding is to be well versed in all aspects of filmmaking... what I was saying is that I feel like certain factors contribute to most newcomers focusing on the technical side vs. the creative side. So much so that everyone wants shallow DOF and will fight like hell to achieve it, but never question whether or not the shot needs that lack of depth to help tell the story. Thats when the technical overtakes the creative. And yes there are many reasons why a production will be lacking some of the amenities of a well financed film, but that doesn't mean the director should just be satisfied with what he gets, he should have an understanding of what it takes to polish that turd!!! I'm joking but the key is having the tools to make the best possible product out of what your given, and that's not all to do with what camera you have.

yes and ... B movies are generally considered narratively week, are usually soon forgotten, and considered to succeed in spite of their poor story telling, yes due to a a nice pair of boobs, special effects, being so bad their good, or something intangible. Which I don't think means that spectacle is more important than storytelling ability, or has equal value.

When I took Jazz saxophone in high school David Sanborn was huge, had a great screaming tone, played with a metal mouthpiece. He played out of the side of his mouth, which is contrary to "proper technique" . Lots of young sax players tried playing out of the side of their mouths to achieve his sound. One of my sax teachers worked with / played with Sanborn. Said Sanborn played that way because he had a snaggletooth in the lower middle which prohibited him from using proper embouchure (mouth placement) and which helped create the a more round standard embouchure on the side of his mouth. He played well in SPITE Of his embouchure, not because of it. Similarly, Dizzy Gillespie, famous for his puffed out cheeks, learned on his own growing up, but he and any trumpet teacher will tell you that he sounded great in spite of, not because of his completely taboo embouchure. Learn the correct embouchure, which allows for the most controlled tone, the most endurance, and you'll MORE LIKELY sound like Sanborn on Sax or Gillespie on trumpet, and be able to play for longer.

B movies are sometimes entertaining inspite of poor story telling skills. Which does not mean spectacle or gimmicks are as important as story.

Make a well told "B" movie like Peter Bogdanavich's TARGET (for Coreman, starring Karloff) and (and featuring no gore - that I recall - and no nudity) and it will still stand up 40 years later.
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Targets/60029343?trkid=2361637#height1687

 

[Rolf Silber]

This is the crux of what I am asking and the point I am making. You have proved the point very succinctly... how are people doing this, how are they building their spines from the script in order to build the visuals; are they even taking time to do it, and if not, why?

Hard to answer. I believe from what the script gives you one can start to listen to the individual emotional & intellectual reactions and associations this script evokes within you and others. Seems to be a flimsy answer - but I believe the work of a director is "processual" and does not follow fixed patterns. And what makes it distinctively different from what an other director would have created from the same script is the ability to listen, to see, to feel what the script provokes inside yourself and others and from this to decide where you want to go to, what chords in you are stroked. Step by step.

For me the visual concept has to come out of these material(s). And the day you have shovelled yourself deep enough into that material to meet "the ghost within" - the mighty sub-text, the most lovely and most fearsome creature in film making - may be the day you can decide on the overall concept and go on with the cinematographer and the set designer and see if the concept holds and is at the same time strong but flexible enough to survive. Again it's "processual" if this word is allowed in the English language. And hopefully you can narrow it down from day to day until shooting starts... and you can see if in accordance with the script the sub-text really kicks in or if it kicks your behind.... ;-)

Sorry if this sounds a bit lofty but I just realize that I find it hard to describe this process.

 

[seanmcleod]

A great resource to study the CRAFT of filmmaking and how to put the TECH into service of the NARRATIVE
Michael Rabbinger's directing book
http://www.amazon.com/Directing-Fou...-Screencraft/dp/0240808827/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
You can get older editions for much cheaper.
Includes discussion of how to get you out of aping other directors styles (as most of us start out dong) and strip everything away and start with the camera and the text and begin in service of the text.

Thanks for the reco, always interested in books on the art... currently reading Lumet's Making Movies, so far he hasn't really gotten into his techniques too much but more of "this is what my job is as director" (only a little way in). So hopefully he gets a little more into his creative process and decision making influences as the book goes on. Also great example with the jazz players.

I already made my "I'm going to be Quentin Tarantino" film in college so I find myself for the last couple years really trying to identify that cliched term of "finding my voice". Which may be not something someone admit, but I've decided that anyone who makes a film that is worth watching has a strong and identifiable point of view, ie their voice... which ends up being undeniably identifiable as them. The Coens, Scorcese, Tarantino, Kubrick, etc... I think everyone can absorb VISUAL styles from the films they enjoy and watch, and that then becomes part of your make-up, so essentially most are rehashing looks and shots of films they've scene. I think what makes something original and what really makes you the director with your singular vision is when you learn to access your toolbox of ideas you've picked up along the way in a way that gives them meaning to you and to the story. What I'm saying, probably unclearly, is that finding out what your point of view is on the material should inform what tools you use from the ones you've stored in your toolbox throughout your filmmaking studies.

So what I try to do to learn to be a better director with a stronger point of view and more singular voice is study the work of directors I admire and/or respect, and discover why they made the choices they did in their films. Sometimes it's deep, sometimes it's just as simple as it was raining so we shot inside. But, each time I learn why they choose what they did, it gives me an clear picture of what things should affect the decision making process, or rather what I should be accessing to come up with the answer that is from my own personal point of view. Essentially showing me the questions I should be asking myself when trying to conceive the motivation for a certain aspect of the process, whether its performance or shots.

I would assume most don't try to go deeper and discover how they would make the decision, but rather make the decision because someone else made that decision before them, and that's how something becomes incredibly derivative and as a consequence doesn't feel true or unique.

Without sounding like I think I am high and mighty cause I try to study deeper (still a long, long road ahead to feel I've found my point of view), but I think it's a lack of respect, or perhaps even and unawareness of the role a true director fulfills. Many approach it as if you're a traffic cop just telling people where to go and when to do it, but realistically your more like a GPS, finding out where they started, where they need to go, and what's the best way to get there.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Without sounding like I think I am high and mighty cause I try to study deeper (still a long, long road ahead to feel I've found my point of view), but I think it's a lack of respect, or perhaps even and unawareness of the role a true director fulfills. Many approach it as if you're a traffic cop just telling people where to go and when to do it, but realistically your more like a GPS, finding out where they started, where they need to go, and what's the best way to get there.

Beautiful...

 

[dougspice]

A well-needed thread. I've been around this site for years and years, but have little interest or patience in the tech stuff anymore (although I recognize some of the tremendous assets that are here in that respect). The result is that I pop in, take a look at the directing or screenwriting sections, see there's not much going on of interest, and log off.

Is that a bad thing? For me, no. The time I might have spent (am spending right now) basically procrastinating on a message board could be put to much better use actually creating something. I think it's really important to get a level of balance in whatever it is you do, and for me it's possible for sites like this (or Facebook) or whatever to become a crutch keeping me from actually doing anything meaningful. So I've had to learn how to balance participating and learning with whatever that fine line is that's just wasting time.

 

[dougspice]

That was a bit off-topic, in retrospect. Let me steer it back around.

1) I completely agree that most "directors" barely qualify for the term, although not necessarily through any fault of their own. When I first started out, I was concerned about performance but I didn't really know what tools to use, so I made what passing effort I could and spent more time on the things I could tangibly control. I knew this wasn't right, though, and learned how to access those tools. Being able to make a rational, conscious explanation for what you're doing and the choice you make as a director, writer, whatever is critically important. Otherwise, even if you succeed, it's probably a lot of luck! Which isn't to say that well-intentioned, carefully reasoned choices can't also be mistakes, but I'd rather see a movie where the director committed to a choice (even if it was a poor choice) over one who copied something generic any day of the week.

2) I think seanmcloud hit it on the head in one of his posts. I don't think that technology in the form of cameras and computers and whatever is the prime force of the problem. I think the cultural oroboros is. And that's driven by technology, too. A filmmaker 100, 50, even 20 years ago really had to create his own style, to an extent. They simply couldn't see as many films. The language hadn't coalesced yet. A filmmaker today (and I'm including myself in this group) has immediate access to almost any film ever made, and can rewatch any of them at any time! In theory, this should be a good thing... but from a creative perspective it can also be another serious crutch. I see a LOT of films that are simply conscious imitations of other (earlier, and usually better) work. I also see myself unconsciously doing the same thing, sometimes, and finding it very frustrating.

Ironically, considering my last comment, my advice is actually to watch and read as much from directors you admire as possible. Listening to a great director's commentary is a rare treat – and I think if you're smart you'll notice the intense intelligence those guys will be able to express about their work. Experiences like that are what made me wake up and realize how much more work the real greats were putting in, mentally, than I was, and that I needed to step up and play ball to be able to execute at that level. I feel pretty comfortable saying that almost everything I've done has been better than what came before, so I think it's working.

 

[Martay]

I find it extremely rare when I post a clip or video or even a short that I get any notes on actors performance, story, pacing, etc... because people don't dedicate the kind of time to learning those ideas that they do to learning about gear.

You bring up a good point, but I'll say that may be more to do with polite company. I mean, discussing the technical aspects (i.e. flaws or even praise for a shot) protects a commenter from crossing a line at times. Criticizing a performance or the writing is far more personal a topic for the person posting likely than the aesthetic or the sound quality, etc.

Truthfully, most people take that criticism hard and get defensive, so commenters are likely not to even go there.

While I agree that these things are as important, if not moreso than the simple surface aesthetics in films (or movies if you happen to be making those), I think that those things are far more subjective and more difficult to discuss than the packaging they arrive in.

-Martin

 

[dougspice]

Yeah, but aren't they also pretty much the only part that matters? If they weren't, we'd all be making music videos instead of narrative films, right?

I'm going to go ahead and disagree 100% with what one of the early posters in here said: I will watch a movie of low technical quality that has a good, interesting story any day of the week. On the other hand, my interest in watching something beautiful but empty is very low. That's not to say that I don't occasionally love just kicking back and watching a popcorn flick like G.I. Joe... it's just that usually I've had a bit to drink to go along with it.

Beautiful is easy. Meaningful is hard.