Content is King.

Chance White said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually let me add to my point and/or clarify. I totally agree that Joe Public could care less a great deal of the time, it's the "gatekeepers" that prevent the public from seeing a lot of stuff that get caught up in production values.

I would love to be a fly on the wall during the "Land of Plenty", "November" and even "Lonesome Jim" distribution discussions. Even with hard hitters on the crew and in the cast it seems that production value is an issue. I may be off base but I think In|dig|ent hits some walls over this as well.

It sucks, but that's the way it seems in some cases. A great deal of the decision makers aren't artists or can even afford to be "fans", it's business and a consistent production value for that level has got to come into play.
 
And that afterall is the goal ST.

Content man. HEaring Speilberg say verbatum "I'd rather watch a poorly shot film with a compelling story than a proficently shot film with no story..." just set me off. It's so true.

I would never downplay the importance of presentation NULLPHONIC; my goals are to strive at all levels. But perhaps we somtimes can forget "Oh yeah; story."
 
Spielberg is right : STORYTELLER

I think the story is important but much more important is the way you tell it.
Since the old greeks nothing new has been really invented.
Love, hate, fear, sex, power, death.
Always the same patterns.

But I often notice that great movies are always a whole.
I don't why but my favorite movies are always a mix of great story, great acting, great music, great cinematography.

And each time, I ask to myself : how is it possible to get all these elements together at the same moment for a single film. How do they make it possible ?

Examples ?
Conan the barbarian,
Blade Runner,
The Graduate,
Amelie.

All have great music, great acting, great cinematography but their story is not necessary something new or even great and generally already shot one thousand times.

More than the chance I will lean for a moment of grace.

I hope that all of us will know this moment of grace
 
John_Hudson said:
But perhaps we somtimes can forget "Oh yeah; story."
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm walking a fine line for sure because I totally agree with content while still trying to make a production value arguement.

I guess in a perfect world we could be just writers/directors, let the DPs dwell on the technical and find a great editor instead of trying to stretch across so many jobs and possibly come up short.

I've recently come to terms with the fact that I have no interest in color correction or editing or most post work and I'm slowly fading from CO/DP.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
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
.
Click to expand...

I do that all the time, I remember seeing a short shot on 16, and thinking - damnit man, you could've accomplished a similar look at a fraction of the cost on a dvx. It's actually a problem i've been having, for example i was watching 21 grams last night, and I found myself being distracted by some of the cinematography (when Sean Penn's character is in the hotel with the blonde chick or when benecio del Toro is in the truck after he runs down the guy + kids)

I find myself doing it more often and not paying attention to the story, I will literally zone out and think to myself, how did they light this, why - it would've been better this way or that way or whatever.

Maybe I'm just wierd like that though
 
Where have you been Monte? MIA?

I see your points on 21 GRams; I love it personally bnut at times it does seem a bit contrived.
 
for indie filmmakers, content has to be king. we don't have the resources and many of us have 1-2 man crews (ourselves included!). so i've been reading every book i can, but what it comes down to is actually writing something. and re-writing, and revising, and getting feedback, etc. after figuring out all the technical stuff and learning the camera, audio, lighting, etc. it can be a bit intimidating to realize the most important tool is your own creativity and ability to tell a story (or lack thereof). it is indeed the hardest part of the equation, unless you have a knack for it. it can be learned though. anything can be learned.
 
I absolutly agree with the posts in this thread. Content is king. It is just that making a great film, sh*t even making a good film, is very complicated. By complicated, I do not mean just the technical/artistic means of production, but the very complicated audience perception mechanisms involved in the acceptance of a movie. As examples of this, just think about "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca" and "It's a Wonderful Life". All of these movies were, if not box office bombs, at least disappointing in audience acceptance when first released, but have become to be seen as classics.

To say that content is king, we still must remember that content is not one thing. Content has to be thought of as all of the above, as the sum of all all the parts. Yes, there must be a great story, as expressed as a great script. This script must be placed in the hands of a talented director who casts the roles with excellent actors. This great story with a great director and excellent actors must take place in believable settings. We must be able to hear what the excellent actors are saying must be able to be moved by the films music. And on and on.

In this summation of the whole, I think that excellent cinematagraphy fits. Cinematography, when it is good, contributes flawlessly with the whole and contributes a quality that words almost can not express.

But, It all starts with a great script!!!
 
Great point Rose,

Glengarry Glenross doesn't seem as good when performed by 7th graders in the gymnasium directed by Miss Lund as opposed to being performed by Al Pacino under the direction of James Foley.

Actually the script felt a little slow to me, but hey, I ram my head into walls what do i know?


Johnny - took a little break (for my own good) been gaming, editing, color correcting, rotoing. These damn forums are worse than heroin (the addiction factor that is)

-Monte
 
I agree with the content and the storytelling but not with all of the examples you chose. I know I'm in the minority but I didn't care for Sideways or Napolean Dynamite. I can appreciate what they accomplished as independant filmmakers(success) but I didn't find them compelling. It must be my midwestern lack of culture or inability to understand complex subject matter. I'm still working on it. Sorry I didn't mean to hijack this thread with a discussion on the merits of these two independant films(ok maybe I did) but in some ways the herd mentality takes over on independant films I find myself thinking "what am I missing". Like I said I'm culturally illiterate so sometimes I use words like artsy fartsy and the like. I don't want to miss out on the next Tarantino or Scorcese so I rush to the theatre with sometimes high expectations which may explain my disappointment with these two films. By the way John, how many of Spielberg films have Oscar winning performances? None I think. Maybe thats the ultimate tribute.
 
Consider Primer. That film had a $7k budget but the filmmaker spent a YEAR getting the script right. If you listen to the DVD director's commentary, he openly points out the poorly composed camerawork, cheap props, etc. But his story was a mindbender. Ultimately it was his hard work on the script that won Sundance.

If you read Stephen King's autobiography On Writing, he asserts that story is the most crucial element of writing, ranking above elements like character, dialogue, description, etc.
 
Bigmagic said:
I agree with the content and the storytelling but not with all of the examples you chose. I know I'm in the minority but I didn't care for Sideways or Napolean Dynamite. I can appreciate what they accomplished as independant filmmakers(success) but I didn't find them compelling. It must be my midwestern lack of culture or inability to understand complex subject matter. I'm still working on it. Sorry I didn't mean to hijack this thread with a discussion on the merits of these two independant films(ok maybe I did) but in some ways the herd mentality takes over on independant films I find myself thinking "what am I missing". Like I said I'm culturally illiterate so sometimes I use words like artsy fartsy and the like. I don't want to miss out on the next Tarantino or Scorcese so I rush to the theatre with sometimes high expectations which may explain my disappointment with these two films. By the way John, how many of Spielberg films have Oscar winning performances? None I think. Maybe thats the ultimate tribute.
Click to expand...


Don't sweat it. Napolean Dynamite and Sideways both have a certain point of view. It is either something you dig or you don't.
 
Yeah, Napolean etc I've found are either love em or hate em affairs.

I have friends that HATE Lost In Translation with a passion, and I just don't understand it... haha.

Primer is a great example. It's a film that is technically poor in almost every way, but the story is a very high concept one told very well... and look how well it has done.
 
nullphonic said:
It sucks, but that's the way it seems in some cases. A great deal of the decision makers aren't artists or can even afford to be "fans", it's business and a consistent production value for that level has got to come into play.
Click to expand...
I agree. Having tried to put on different hats at different times, I have always been amazed how my 'business thinking' impairs my creativity, and vice versa - how my somewhat creative nature is getting in the way of business decisions.

I can imagine that the decision makers are so deep in their number crunching, production value criteria-driven thought processes that they may miss a pure genius. I was watching a documentary on Jerry Seinfeld's beginnings the other night, and when you listen to the execs, you figure they are all creative morons.

It's actually quite liberating, once you know the sort of red tape and rejection that some great artists first experienced, you may also say "what the hell... let me be myself" - not forgetting about content being the king, of course.

I am just babbling...
 
well

well

I totally disagree about the 'content is king' thing.

I mean, cmon - just put a woman with big jugs up on the screen and you got a hit.

Joke! That was a joke!

Nice reminder John about the essentials.
 
speedbump said:
I totally disagree about the 'content is king' thing.

I mean, cmon - just put a woman with big jugs up on the screen and you got a hit.

.
Click to expand...

Come on... tell me the truth, what movie could not be improved with a lesbian sex scene and a car chase!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top