Crash

Gordon JL said:
Filmmakers are essentially storytellers. The main objective is to tell a story and to communicate a message; the visuals, in my opinion, are secondary.

The same goes with other visual art forms; there is always a message the artist attempts to communicate.

Some filmmakers prefer to aid the storytelling aspect using visuals, while others would try to aid the visuals with the story (sort of an avant-garde type of thing). In both cases, they are not about the images, although the focus of the films may change between the visuals and the storytelling, but are "about the message".

I guess you could argue that the images are the "most important" element in the storytelling process, but one could also argue that all of the elements are equally important, as they all serve an important role in communicating the artists message. One could also argue that since the message lies within the writing/script of a film, that that should be the "most important".

My point is, it's about the story, or at least, the message.
Click to expand...

If a filmmaker thinks a "message" has to be conveyed through a script, he is limiting himself.

The art of film was born because moving images were able to be captured. So, I don't believe that it can be argued that they are not most important. At one time they were the only element that existed. There wasn't sound and no one was telling any "stories", there was only the image. Film is about the images because that is what distinguishes it from the other arts. If you want to tell stories you should write books, and if you are into sound, then you should be in music. Sound and dialogue and music can add to a film, but if taken away should not hinder the original process of filmmaking, at least a true "filmmaker" shouldn't be hindered.

I am a filmmaker, but the last thing I consider myself and the last thing I would want to be is a storyteller.
 
Coltrain said:
I am a filmmaker, but the last thing I consider myself and the last thing I would want to be is a storyteller.
Click to expand...

So you do agree that there is a message to be communicated, and that it is "about the message", and in your case, the images are the most important way to express that message?
 
Gordon JL said:
So you do agree that there is a message to be communicated, and that it is "about the message", and in your case, the images are the most important way to express that message?
Click to expand...
Possibly.
 
Coltrain

You make no sense whatosoever and 'YES YOU DO' try to hard to come across as this all self important prententious arse. Just as originaly expected (Predicted).

Why do you try so hard? Your repeating sound bites from that small niche that exists to make film a miserable experience. Do you have an original thought in your head? We all subscribe to popular (sometimes not so popular) opinion but use them as a basis; you have to have your own opinion.

You're saying things to what? Get a rise? Start some controversy? But when prodded to explain or enlighten you come back with "possibly" or "I don't analyze"

You consider yourself a filmmaker and not a storyteller. What the **** does this even mean? Is your goal not to tell a story?

You call it a Wannabe Magnolia; have some common courtesy to participate in the conversation please? It's a cop-out to say 'I don't analyze.'

Any credentials you may have had are fast blowing away in the wind. You're in the minority with your discriminating taste in cinema and I welcome it with open arms; but have some cooth and courtesy please when engaging in discussion.

Now; enlighten us would ya?
 
John_Hudson said:
Coltrain

You make no sense whatosoever and 'YES YOU DO' try to hard to come across as this all self important prententious arse. Just as originaly expected (Predicted).

Why do you try so hard? Your repeating sound bites from that small niche that exists to make film a miserable experience. Do you have an original thought in your head? We all subscribe to popular (sometimes not so popular) opinion but use them as a basis; you have to have your own opinion.

You're saying things to what? Get a rise? Start some controversy? But when prodded to explain or enlighten you come back with "possibly" or "I don't analyze"

You consider yourself a filmmaker and not a storyteller. What the **** does this even mean? Is your goal not to tell a story?

You call it a Wannabe Magnolia; have some common courtesy to participate in the conversation please? It's a cop-out to say 'I don't analyze.'

Any credentials you may have had are fast blowing away in the wind. You're in the minority with your discriminating taste in cinema and I welcome it with open arms; but have some cooth and courtesy please when engaging in discussion.

Now; enlighten us would ya?
Click to expand...
I say "possibly" because I cannot say for sure.

I think we all need to acknowledge that there would be a difference between "storytelling" and as Gordon put it a "message". The films I make closer resemble having a "message", than they are stories, but I really don't like that word either because it doesn't seem to suit what I try to do. I think you would grasp where I am coming from, better, if you had seen some of the films that I have been influenced or inspired by. The greatest example of what I am trying to do would be Tarkovsky's "Mirror". The film does not tell a "story" and it doesn't have a "message". However it functions exactly how (ideally) I would like my own films to function. Check it out and maybe you will understand my approach a little better. My only goal is to glorify God through film. That doesn't mean my films have a "message" however, they just exist and are meant to be seen, but there also is not really a firm plot or storyline.

I do not discriminate.

I don't analyze, because as I have seen you say, film is meant to move or affect you, that is what art should do. So, I don't write reviews or analyze films because that is not what they were intended for.

It seems to me that everything I have said is original. If I have copied it from elsewhere or have "stolen" ideas or something I would be interested in seeing them.

I am also opinionated, that is why you don't like me.
 
It seems to me that everything I have said is original. If I have copied it from elsewhere or have "stolen" ideas or something I would be interested in seeing them.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. I'm coming from "Some dude did the thinking for me." and "I didn't write it. " when you were prodded. Maybe you were being sarcastic or playful? I see looking back you were providing someone else analysis of Crash?

That's kind of what I mean; that's not your opinion; that's someone else's

I am also opinionated, that is why you don't like me.
Click to expand...

I don't know you so I can't form that judgement. I do not like your opinion (on film) because you tend to come across as a pretentious ass and I find your opinion on filmmaking and cinema stuffy. Let's not confuse the issues. I don't know you Coltrain sp please let's not start with the I DONT LIKE YOU comments. I don't like you as much as I love you; I wouldnt know.

When I see comments like "Don't be sorry. I'm the one who is right." in your threads it doesn't help me form an at least level opinon of you; or at least your opinion on film.

I do not discriminate.
Click to expand...

Your opinion and tastes in film are indeed discriminating. You fall under the 'Niche Review'. I can find a thousand sites that support your views on filmmaking; none of them original and all of them a stale and suffocating take on Cinema.

I think we all need to acknowledge that there would be a difference between "storytelling" and as Gordon put it a "message". The films I make closer resemble having a "message", than they are stories, but I really don't like that word either because it doesn't seem to suit what I try to do. I think you would grasp where I am coming from, better, if you had seen some of the films that I have been influenced or inspired by. The greatest example of what I am trying to do would be Tarkovsky's "Mirror". The film does not tell a "story" and it doesn't have a "message". However it functions exactly how (ideally) I would like my own films to function. Check it out and maybe you will understand my approach a little better. My only goal is to glorify God through film. That doesn't mean my films have a "message" however, they just exist and are meant to be seen, but there also is not really a firm plot or storyline.
Click to expand...

I am on the lookout for this film (Mirror).

Ya know; I have no idea what it is your trying to accomplish with your films (please share one) but maybe you're thinking too hard about it; I don't know; maybe I just don't get it. Sounds as if you just want to do 'abstract/experimental' work or 'existenal'?

One thing I do know; if you are trying to get a message across (as Gordon says) you better know how to get it across; I know, like in telling a story.

Me? I just want to tell stories. I just want to entertain. I could make popcorn or I can get a vision and message across to the people. It is all going to depend on intentions and state of mind at the time.
 
My brain hurts from Coltrain's rationalizations and his theory of "what is film". I believe storytelling is the key to any movie. That storytelling can be as simple as point A to point B. Storytelling can be accomplished with image, sound, dialog, subtext...etc. Every interview with a director (great, marginal or hack) always has this statement "...It was a story I wanted to tell." Coltrain please post ANYTHING you've ever shot so I can try to grasp your thought process and not resort to rolling my eyes and whispering "Jesus Christ this guy is an idiot!" every time I read one of your posts. Illuminate me with your work not your defensive posts...thanks
 
I think I know where you’re coming from Coltrain with your work. Events sliding together to create moments/ imagery heavy with symbolism with a subconscious message coming through, creating something maybe the director couldn’t predict. Not sticking to a rigid script and letting things happen, whilst containing some control on production. The problem with Art in general is that groups of public are sheep. Individually they are able to appreciate higher things. When I did stand-up comedy, the biggest shock I had was the more pathetic the jokes got the bigger the laughs. You know the ones; your dog wouldn’t laugh even if he had a nose! I think what I'm trying to say is that there isn’t enough public demand for that type of work. Personally I would love to reach the biggest audience possible in order to...dare I say it...touch/ cause a reaction...to manipulate in the most honorable way...excite and move and without a good story you’re buggered.
 
Coltrain said:
The greatest example of what I am trying to do would be Tarkovsky's "Mirror". The film does not tell a "story" and it doesn't have a "message". However it functions exactly how (ideally) I would like my own films to function. Check it out and maybe you will understand my approach a little better.

I don't analyze, because as I have seen you say, film is meant to move or affect you, that is what art should do. So, I don't write reviews or analyze films because that is not what they were intended for.
Click to expand...

A quote from Tarkovsky, "I should like to ask you all not to be so demanding, and not to think of Mirror as a difficult film. It is no more than a straightforward, simple story. It doesn't have to be made any more understandable."

There is a story to Tarkovsky's Mirror, and there is a point, and a message. Not all films have stories, but most, if not all, have some resemblance of a message.

If you wanna make films and not movies, films that do not tell a story but express a message, I have no problem with it. But telling someone that "I'm the one who is right" is just... dumb.

Source: http://industrycentral.net/director_interviews/AT01.HTM
 
John_Hudson said:
Thank you Gordon JL for doing some legwork on this.

Exactly.
Click to expand...
Exactly...please...see the film.

Neither of you have seen it, but if you had you would understand what I'm talking about.
 
Coltrain,

Why do you agree with a response that debunks your whole arguement. And why do you refuse to post ANYTHING you've shot so we can see what you mean. Every time you refuse to respond to these requests diminishes any credibility you have left. It's really getting sad.
 
No I don't think we would.

But I will see it. It is on my 'SEE' list and I will look for this.

I think you are perceiveing the film to be something it isn't. That's alright because art does indeed speak to each of us differently. I just don't see your vision nor your take on the matter.

But I do appreciate it. I can dig it. I do want to understand. And that is what makes these threads so good; the debates, the heat, the tension.....

Sigh................ Art.
 
crazyczech said:
Coltrain,

Why do you agree with a response that debunks your whole arguement. And why do you refuse to post ANYTHING you've shot so we can see what you mean. Every time you refuse to respond to these requests diminishes any credibility you have left. It's really getting sad.
Click to expand...
Someday you will have the opportunity to see my work.
 
Seriously, I would literally dare anyone on earth to see Mirror, and come away from it saying it is a simple story, in the way Hollywood films are simple stories.
 
"Mirror is Andrei Tarkovsky's visually transcendent, artistically revelatory autobiographical film on lost innocence and emotional abandonment. Presented as a languidly paced, achronological cinematic montage of modern day life, personal memories, historical news footage, and dreams, Mirror is an introspective journey through the course of human existence, hope and despair, success and frailty: a television broadcast of a young man seemingly cured from stuttering through hypnosis; a neglected wife (Margarita Terekhova) humoring a village doctor who has lost his way; a custodial argument between a faceless narrator (Innokenty Smoktunovsky) and his ex-wife; a precocious young man trying the patience of his military instructor (Yuri Nazarov). To attempt to conform these images into some coherent plot or universal conclusion is meaningless. After all, Mirror is a reflection of Tarkovsky's haunted soul: his search for spirituality, connection, Truth - exposed through indelible images that inevitably define our own imperfect lives, however trivial or mundane. "
-Acquarello from Strictly Film School

I think he thought it was a simple story, don't you?
 
Tarkovsky is quoted as saying, "It is no more than a straightforward, simple story..." Are you in denial? Why do you want to glorify and put on a pedestal something that the director himself acknowledges as "a simple story?". There's nothing wrong with at simple story. It doesn't mean a film cannot be deep, thoughtful, multi-layered, profound or astounding because it is simple. Coltrain, have you shot anything yet? Video, film or otherwise?
 
"Mirror for me is in general the most complicated of my films — as a structure, not as a fragment considered separately but precisely as a construction; its dramaturgy is extraordinarily complex, convoluted. "

-ANDREI TARKOVSKY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top