Cinema History?

sonnyboo

sonnyboo

Well-known member
How important is knowing any kind of cinema history? I don't feel it's necessary, but I do feel strongly that I benefit greatly by comprehending the importance of contributions by Edwin S. Porter, D.W. Griffith, Orson Welles, etc.

The French New Wave movement came from film critics, who deeply understood what was done before them and they pioneered a film movement by taking what was done before and turning it sideways. They had a deep understanding of what was done in the past and re-wrote the book. None of them were ignorant of what was the norm and the standards.

The American film renaissance of the late 1960's starting with Easy Rider opened the door for people like Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Spielberg, etc. and shaped films into a new age of "realistic" portrayals. Large sets were replaced by all location shooting and method acting.

The benefit of knowing cinema history is understanding it's impact on the audience. Having the ideas of what have worked for over 100 years to effect a viewer is like having a rubber band versus a shot gun.

What do you think? How important is cinema history to YOU?
 
Last edited:
Well, i don't believe it's necessary to create good films. But it certainly couldn't hurt, and any interest in film or making them will probably coicinide with an interest in film history.

The important thing is to scout out films that will inspire you. In diving into film history, I've discovered films that make me think in new ways, enrich my spirit and creativity, and make me realize anything is possible.

So I like to give priority to directors and films I'm interested first, which are usually older ones anyway. Every once in a while I'll slip in something like Battleship Potemkin or Man with a Movie Camera to understand where certain techniques were born, simply because they interest me, not because it's an obligation.

So again, you don't need it unless you're going to become a critic/historian. But learning can't hurt, right? Watch a couple of Griffith films, but don't watch his WHOLE filmography, unless those couple of films really spoke to you. That's how I roll.
 
You have to know what happened in order to know where you are going.

But I only use that philosophy so much. So long as I have a basic idea of cinema, I'm happy. It's knowing the immediate past that is critical. Because things change so fast, you can't base everything off of the inception of cinema. Totally new game now.
 
The better you understand something, the better you can do it. The answer is of course.

If you think you have nothing to learn from those who came before you, than that is the real tragedy.
 
I think it is VERY important - especially for one particular discipline: Editing. All styles (writing, acting,directing and even cinematography) change with the times. But I don't find that the case with good editing. Those basic concepts are universal and do not seem to change over time, and there is much to be learned from the films of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's to that end.
 
I am a history geek from way back, and not just film history and, so I think that it is very important. I first got mixed up in this stuff when I was a kid and my parents gave me a dual 8mm projector, from Kmart, for christmas. (That lets you know I got some years on me). In the days before home video, our local library had Super 8mm films you could check out, like they have DVDs now. The library I frequented had a large collection of Black Hawk Films movies, which included a lot of old silent films. Some of the most fond memories I have of my child hood are watching movies like, "Intolerance", "Birth of a Nation", "Broken Blossoms", "Metropolis", "Der Golem" and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" 10 feet wide on my bedroom wall. They had a huge collection of Charlie Chaplin one reelers and I watched them over and over. Needless to say, thirty some years latter, I was hooked.

Now in the age of the Turner Classic Movies, NetFlix and the internet, I am, to quote my grand-pa, like a pig in sh*t. I just can't believe the availability of great classic films today. I take advantage of this to watch as many classic and obscure films as I can. On NetFlix, I am finishing up my study of Godard (an acquire taste, not for everybody), Kurosawa and Jean-Pierre Melville. I am looking forwarded to getting into the films of Luis Bunuel, Ingmar Bergman, Fellini, and on and on. I think that the watching of these great masters of filmmaking not only make me a better filmmaker, but I believe that they make me a better, more rounded person.

Filmmaking is a very complicated, competitive profession. To slight any part of your development as a filmmaker, like the study of the history of cinema, will, in my opinion, stunt your growth as a professional. While it is important to know how to set up the image processing menu items on the camera you are working with, and how to lay down a dolly shot so it is smooth, it is just as important to understand how the language of the images you are making can tell a story, and evoke the emotions that you are seeking. To understand this, I suggest studying how it has been done by great filmmakers in the past.
 
I like drawing comparisons, and seeing how trends change and then repeat.

I was watching The Conversation today. It occurred to me that, made in 1972, it was a fairly recent film in my mind. It's in color and just about everyone involved is still alive.

For some people, that film is ANCIENT.

Anyway, the way the camera holds on shots, how there isn't much coverage, how the score is simple and complementary as opposed to manipulative, how the pace is slow from the very first shot. Pretty much the antithesis of what most films made today would be like. And yet it works. So, trying to see past the differences in eras, I try to understand WHY it works. You can do this with any great film, whether it's Rashomon, Potemkin, M, Casablanca, Jaws or A Few Good Men. For me, it's never about whether one thing is better than another. It's about dissecting the piece until you figure out why it works. In this case, it works because it is a compelling and prescient story, driven by amazing performances, with a great hook near the end. You could update the technology, and re-shoot it almost shot for shot, and all the things you think would not work, would be the reason why people went to go see it.

There is a universality in what appeals to the overwhelming mass of movie goers. When you look back, not only can you learn from the evolution (and sometimes revolution) of cinema, you get a better understanding of what transcends generations. It should distill the essence of storytelling down to it's barest efficiency because none of the trappings are the same. So the common denominators become self-evident.

That is what looking at the history of Cinema does for me. That, and many, many joyous hours of pure, unbridled entertainment.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I like drawing comparisons, and seeing how trends change and then repeat.

I was watching The Conversation today. It occurred to me that, made in 1972, it was a fairly recent film in my mind. It's in color and just about everyone involved is still alive.

For some people, that film is ANCIENT.

Anyway, the way the camera holds on shots, how there isn't much coverage, how the score is simple and complementary as opposed to manipulative, how the pace is slow from the very first shot. Pretty much the antithesis of what most films made today would be like. And yet it works. So, trying to see past the differences in eras, I try to understand WHY it works. You can do this with any great film, whether it's Rashomon, Potemkin, M, Casablanca, Jaws or A Few Good Men. For me, it's never about whether one thing is better than another. It's about dissecting the piece until you figure out why it works. In this case, it works because it is a compelling and prescient story, driven by amazing performances, with a great hook near the end. You could update the technology, and re-shoot it almost shot for shot, and all the things you think would not work, would be the reason why people went to go see it.

There is a universality in what appeals to the overwhelming mass of movie goers. When you look back, not only can you learn from the evolution (and sometimes revolution) of cinema, you get a better understanding of what transcends generations. It should distill the essence of storytelling down to it's barest efficiency because none of the trappings are the same. So the common denominators become self-evident.

That is what looking at the history of Cinema does for me. That, and many, many joyous hours of pure, unbridled entertainment.
Click to expand...

Damn Jim, we may be brothers of different mothers! I love "The Conversation". You have the simplest explanation of why one should study cinema history. The great films of the past are a joy to watch.

If you call yourself a filmmaker and don't find that to be true, then you might want to find other ways to meet girls or make money.
 
There are girls and money?


Like some of the films you mentioned, it can be a bit of chore in some ways for the uninitiated. I've had people ask me in that first scene at Harry's place "Where'd he go?...did you pause it?" But it is sooooo worth it.
 
its interesting to see modern movies with classic concepts. I never realized how much of todays films are altered versions of classics.
 
Even STAR WARS which as revolutionary in many ways, sadly feels like a ripoff when I watch HIDDEN FORTRESS from Akira Kurasawa, including many camera angles, set designs, and definitely in story.
 
I would read books about pioneers such as Alfred Hitchcock and see what made him ahead of his time. I would also watches movies along with the book that has his shot takes (which I've done and he was fascinating but quite an overshooter and a terrible director for actors but he knew his camera angles).

Japanese filmmakers were also ahead of the game.

I don't think you have to go ancient backed the beginning of filmmaking, but I do think you need to have some understanding of some of the pioneers in this business.
 
nantnee said:
its interesting to see modern movies with classic concepts. I never realized how much of todays films are altered versions of classics.
Click to expand...

Well said. I would even go as far as to same the same about today's actors being altered versions of the classics; insofar as trying to emulate their mannerisms, delivery, and often times look.
 
Jim Brennan said:
There are girls and money?


Like some of the films you mentioned, it can be a bit of chore in some ways for the uninitiated. I've had people ask me in that first scene at Harry's place "Where'd he go?...did you pause it?" But it is sooooo worth it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am still looking for the girls and money too..., but hey, I was on a roll.

Do you mean the party scene? No I haven't paused it. But I have a hard time watching that scene. I have had a lot of movies make me feel a lot of emotions, but I think that that party scene in "The Conversation" is the first one to drag out embarrassment. Maybe I have been to too many parties where a good friend acted like a dick and made a spectacle of themselves, but that scene hit home.
 
I was talking about the scene where we first see Harry's apartment. He puts his stuff down and goes out of frame for a while and the camera doesn't move. Then he comes back into frame, then exits on the other side and the camera just sits there for a while. It finally pans over to him sitting on the couch. Not typical coverage or editing and it can seem like there is something wrong since we don't really see or hear anything for a while.

But the first 2 or 3 times I tried to watch it, I only got as far as the party. It is a very odd, almost creepy scene and I turned it off. It makes me cringe a bit. But that's because they have done such a good job of immersing you in that reality. It feels very real.

I could see why it would not be everyone's taste, but I consider it required viewing.
 
Honestly I think the most valuable part about it is knowing how someone in the past did what your looking to do and succeeded. I'm sure that you can find SOMETHING successful in the past that's in the same arena you might be aiming for...heck even in the indie world.

Cinema History helps you study the market, which in the end matters just as much as you story...especially in today's economy. If you can't sell it, DON'T MAKE IT.
 
It's terrifying that there are people claiming to be filmmakers who didn't know that DISTURBIA is a remake of REAR WINDOW....
 
sonnyboo said:
It's terrifying that there are people claiming to be filmmakers who didn't know that DISTURBIA is a remake of REAR WINDOW....
Click to expand...

How would that make someone any less of a filmmaker? I saw Disturbia - Hated it. I've never heard of Rear Window. And thus, I would not have known Disturbia is a remake of Rear Window. So I'm not a filmmaker by your definition?

There are thousands of "must see" films. People make that stupid comment all the time to others who haven't seen the entire AFI top 100 list. How does that make someone any less of a filmmaker?

I firmly believe you don't have to see every film ever made to be a good DP/Director/Filmmaker/whatever. You need to have your own voice and have an understanding of the past. You don't have to be a walking IMDB to be a good filmmaker.

But that's my opinion. And I personally despise people who use the "If you haven't seen X then you can't call yourself a filmmaker". Because I think that's BS.

//end rant
 
I'm inclined to devour and absorb cinema history. As a teenager and in my early twenties I'd seen just about every notable work from the 60's and 70's. And I'd seen every film accessible on DVD or LaserDisc by Coppola, Scorsese, Altman, Godard, Truffaut, Carpenter, Gilliam, Kubrick, Bergman, Bresson, Kurosawa, The Coen Bros, Antonioni, Cassavetes, Hitchcock, De Palma, Rohmer, Lynch, Wenders, etc, etc. I was very lucky at the time that my best friend shared the same passion for the best cinema had to offer and our combined LaserDisc collection at the time was a point of pride.

And now that I'm older I've moved my sights largely to international filmmakers like Kieslowski (RIP), Tarkovsky, Hou Hsiao Hsien, the Dardenne Bros, Wong Kar Wai, Leigh, and others. There is so much exciting work happening that gets obscured by the focus on films produced here that it makes it hard to find great films with minimal press. I've started going to film festivals to see more american indies because very few even get a home video release – even the good ones. One of my favorite american indies from last year, In Search of a Midnight Kiss, is available all over the world, but not in the states. ??? Isn't it strange that i had to import an american film from the UK? Speaking of which, DVD and Blu-ray region encoding can be a bit of a barrier as well, unless you spring for a multi-region player... and I have. :)

Anyway, I say all that to express my personal feeling that a comprehensive understanding of cinema has been essential to learning composition and lighting and dialgoue and editing and acting. I didn't really go to film school. The first time I heard a Scorsese commentary on the original Criterion LDs for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, my head exploded. These films and filmmakers were my film school.

And while I recognize the importance of absorbing "what's come before" to move the artform forward, and while I'm admittedly suspicious of fimmakers who dismiss the importance of studying seminal works and filmographies (because it often shows), I also recognize that often times the innovators and iconoclasts are the people who come to filmmaking with no pre-determined idea of what its "supposed" to be. And I'm jealous of those people. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top