Content is King.

J.R. Hudson

J.R. Hudson

Spirit Animal
I was watching that one on one with Cruise and Spielberg over at AOL Moviefone for their War of the Worlds hype and someone e-mailed in a questoin asking "How do I get started making films (or become a filmmaker)?"

Of course Steve mentioned it was 'easier' now than when he started stating "Everyone seems to have a HI-8 or Camera laying around and a computer. Now anyone can make a film and have it be seen."

But the most important element was "Learning how to tell a story." Spielberg made mention of him watching short films by 'new filmmakers' and said he would rather watch a film that actually old a story with bad cinematography than a short that was proficient in cinematography that could not tell a story...... Something like that.

Also; Cruise makes mention of Speilberg being the greatest STORYTELLER in the history of Cinema. Not filmmaker; not director, but Storyteller.

The moral being? Content really is king. It got me thinking of a film like Napolean Dynamite or 21 Grams or Lost in Translation or Sideways (I am mentioning modern films of course). None of these films in my opinion have what is widely considered great cinematography (In fact Napolean Dynamite has average or almost amatuer photography); but the stories are captivating.

Content is king. Less we forget.

I would never downplay the significance of wonderfully composed photography but wanted to hammer home the CONTENT IS KING side of things. If we can't learn to tell the story then all of that photography, sound design, musical score and great performances are moot aren't they?

Food for thought.
 
right on.. thats all just very very very true. great cinematography without a great story is like sugar on poop.
 
Supporting the story is the oldest and wisest tenant in filmmaking. The problem with such a collaborative and technical craft like filmmaking is how easy it is to get lost in the technical details. I see this all the time.

Take a good look at old twilight zone episodes from the sixties. They hold up extremely well because of great stories and writing coupled with some wonderful performances.
 
Amen. It's way too easy to focus on the technical aspects when you should maybe do another rewrite on the damn script.
 
I'm not sure I would say Napoleon Dynamite had great "content" ;) :D. That was the most pointless, weak movie I have ever seen!
 
I found Napolean Dynamite to be like a trainwreck story. It was so 'bizarre' you just had to watch it, ya know? By no means a great film and easily overrated but just so weird and out there that it was captivating for that reason.
 
I think part of the reason it's easy to get caught up in the technical side of things is because it can be much more objective than storytelling.

We see people get caught up in technical minutia like pixel shift, bit depth, color sampling, etc... because it's very easy to say with confidence that "4:2:2 is better than 4:1:1" or "1080P is better than 720P" So, it's easier to have confidence in our decisions and feel like we are doing something to make our work better.

I know this is something I've very quilty of. I tend to immerse myself with technical knowledge in a way to make up for any insecurities or lack of confidence I might have in my abilities as a storyteller.

It's not quite so easy to say with confidence "this line of dialogue is better than that line of dialogue" or "this take feels more honest than that take"

Of course, the thing to remind ourselves of is when is the last time any of saw something and said "you know, that would have been a lot better if they'd shot on 35 instead of 16" or "I would have loved it, if it just wasn't for that 4:1:1 color"

Thanks for the reminder John.... it's always good to remember what's important.
 
John is rite..its about content...the cinematography music and all that other stuff pretty much jus puts the icing on the cake.

Speaking of that movie War of The Worlds...they filmed that movie near my neighborhood. I live in New Jersey. Tellin you rite now...Tom Cruise is madddddddddd short...like 5'3. I was like omg...Speilberg isnt that tall either..but they are both kick assss. Cant wait to see that movie.
 
In real estate they have the Three L's. In filmmaking they have the Three C's. Content. Content. Cinematographer.

War of the Worlds is going to be a great flick. Can't wait to download it for free off the Internet! :)
 
I concur. I'm working on a documentary right now and I've left shots in that may be a bit bumpy and handheld, not the best lighting, etc.... all because the content was strong at those points.

I've shot tons of things over the years that were no more than enteric-coated fecal pellets... (Neil, you crack me up!). I mean, I know how to light, compose, sequence, etc. but this documentary is a real unscripted, catch-as-catch-can type of thing.

This project will certainly not merit any cinematography awards but the target audience will absolutely love it because they will get to see all the behind the scenes type stuff relating to their small town football team. The support the town gives to it's youth is the glue that holds that community together. That's my story.
 
..terry, i just want to thank you for your avatar.. im having a bum day and that thing always makes me smile.

yeah though.. sugar on poop. when i used to work construction we'd be on a siding job and have to deal with walls of houses that would wave more than 3 inches or were out of level by more than 4 inches acrossed a 20 foot garage. we always used to refer to siding jobs like that as "putting makeup on the pig" .. cause it doesnt matter how pretty it looks on the outside when the foundation and framework of the whole thing isnt solid risking the whole thing come crashing down. ..


..man i couldnt stand that contractor.. ...anyway
 
Neil

I used to lay tile and stone/marble and totaly know what you are saying; i always depended on the surface and whether or not I had to fix it. Framers are the worst.
 
Ha ha - bricks and mortar.

My grandfather was a bricklayer, and he insisted all six of his daughters (my mom one of them) had to have their own houses built. By him, of course. He was also a frequent customer in local wet quarters, if you know what I mean. None of the houses he built has straight walls. :beer:

Don't know ... I hated both Lost in Translation and Sideways (haven't seen the others). Not that they were necessarily BAD movies, they just could have been cut half-hour shorter, THEN they would be good films. And, speaking of Sideways - yes, it has hillarious moments, but comedy? That ain't no comedy - that's a tragic story of two losers (well... one loser and one maybe). Maybe that's why people find it funny.

What's up with inflating films to last two hours, when the story calls for more like 80 min? Not everyone can carry a story for 120 mins like Spielberg. I know I can't :evil:
 
yeah .. longer movies are trendy now again, but alot of them dont warrant the length they are. sometimes i feel like the director just wanted to make this simple film feel epic by showing us every little boring detail.

john, i dont even know if the framers doing these jobs knew which end of the hammer they were supposed to hit the nail with. scares me buying a newer built house now. some of these places had foundations that look like pocorn cause the creteheads didnt want to spend more time shaking the forms. i could literally see light through the exposed foundation in some rubbly areas becuase it was packed/shaken/compressed so poorly. of course a couple days later and they had gone over it with a trowell and some cement patch. ughhhh.. makes me shudder just thinking back to all that junk i had to deal with.
 
I know that in music, I’ve heard horrible recordings of fantastic songs and the songs played through the production. And then I’ve heard what I “thought” was a great song and the production just flat out killed it.

If the production is bad (still on the music analogy here) you will not get distribution, reviews, consideration for compilations or any air at all in most cases, people just don’t give it a chance in those positions because it “doesn’t sound pro”. I think to a certain degree the same is true here. We here call that line of people between you and the public “The Wall” (and they’re really mean, careless, quick to judge-on-insignificant-factor bs magicians).

“Night of the Living Dead” and the original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” are still genre classics and they sit happily beside my “Matrix” trilogy in my DVD rack but the production (from acting to lighting etc) is obviously pretty beat. Doesn’t matter, they’re over-the-top and compelling in nature (“Blair Witch”). If you can consistently hit that mark then you can afford to disregard production to an extent (let’s see what the “Napoleon Dynamite” team comes out with next, we all saw the disaster of “Blair Witch 2”, more money, better production, horrible script).

I absolutely agree that the content is the bottom line but there’s still some of that (as pointed out in another thread) “the big camera looks more pro” attitude translated into “uugghh,…it’s video” crap out there when trying to go through certain marketing channels.

I think at some point you have to abstract yourself from either being DP, director, editor, writer in order to not get sidetracked and caught up what’s really important for each facet. It’s difficult starting out because you are indeed DP, grip, director, actor, writer, editor, investor, etc.

Anyway, I guess my point is never underestimate the importance of presentation at this level. We have to be as close to perfect as possible unfortunately because you never know when a festival reviewer will come back with a “yeah it was a really cool story but the production value isn’t par with our candidates/format”. Unless you hit that “one guy” that sees through it and you can avoid the increasingly jaded reviewers who are indeed and tragically caught up in production values.

My .02 :laugh:
 
I think everyone is so excited about the HVX, because it will let us play with the big boys... hopefully.

If we can get brilliant content, the HVX should be able to capture a picture that will be deemed "okay" on a large cinema screen. If the content is that good, "okay" in the camera department is good enough. People are still happy to watch repeated TV shows from the 1960s... crap quality, but the content is still there.

Sorry, just repeated what has already been made clear!!
 
I know what you mean John! One of those movies thats just strange enough to make it impossible to turn off!

It's not quite so easy to say with confidence "this line of dialogue is better than that line of dialogue" or "this take feels more honest than that take
Click to expand...

Very well said!
 
Napolean Dynamite works because it is the epitome of quirkiness, and this is part of its content.

Faulting Lost In Translation for being too long I highly disagree with, because to me, the film is like a long, contemplative mood piece about 'that love of our lives that is destined to never work out', without these intimate, well done moments, I don't think it would have the gravity it does.

And Sideways is just a great film, shortening it would take away from such a well written screenplay that really lets you get to know it's characters, who feel absolutely authentic.

I agree 100% with John. You have to realize, that the average person, is not going to notice if the film is poorly shot if you are telling a good story well. People remember the story that was told, not how well it was shot, or how bad the sound was (unless it is really REALLY bad)... Though how well the technical aspects are done correlates to an even better told story asthetically, so I'm not saying they are unimportant, just not something to get entirely sidetracked with, have to remember to tell the story as effectively as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top