interesting doscussion about film and advertsing

I find this comment quite interesting:
Nope; Scott's movies are still financed by ads. After all he owns the biggest ad producing house in London, if not Europe. Yeah, they all make ads. But I think this article misses the point. Anderson's films have always been ads; its what the French call Cine Du Look. Early Scott movies looked like ads; his brother's have never been anything but. 1492 looks like an 80s pop video if you watch it now. But thats when all this started, back then. One by one the ad people took over movie making in most countries; there are only a few non-ad looking film makers left; Hogg, Ceylan spring to mind. Cine du Look, ad-movies started with Wenders and the French boys in the late 70s and early 80s and like a rash they consumed everyone in their path, aided by a group of trashy camp journo's who wouldn't know their eyes from their whatever and a group of ad people who ran the UK Film Council until that particular Soho House gravy train was whisked from under them. In The Mood For Love? Meaningless nonsense; but it looks good. City of God? Favela chic. Drive? Not a single original idea. And don't tell me its "homage" or pastiche; its twaddle for idiots who've never seen a movie pre-2000. Because they were BORING, those movies where you had to think a bit, which couldn't be tossed off afterwards with a knowing ironic quip, a soundbite, a tagline. Thats why we have Cameron; he's the triumph of the ad people; Mr Sheen.

Selling out by shooting commercials i do find myself changing, my framing and lighting starts being too polished which has direct impact on my personal work... All the sudden i'm being reminded by my filming partners that it starts looking "too" beautiful and that is the time when one has to rethink the priorities in our own work.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I find this comment quite interesting:
But I think this article misses the point. Anderson's films have always been ads; its what the French call Cine Du Look. Early Scott movies looked like ads; his brother's have never been anything but. ... etc., etc., etc...And don't tell me its "homage" or pastiche; its twaddle for idiots who've never seen a movie pre-2000.

Selling out by shooting commercials i do find myself changing, my framing and lighting starts being too polished which has direct impact on my personal work... All the sudden i'm being reminded by my filming partners that it starts looking "too" beautiful and that is the time when one has to rethink the priorities in our own work.
Click to expand...


Well, I've seen at least one pre-2000 film... and I really have no idea what this person is 'referring to'... Perhaps he's referring to pre-80's ISO 64 film shot at 400, and developed to golfball sized grain... to give it that 'gritty street look' or something.

I do think that this person is confusing story with execution. Hollywood, that is the money making business of film has always been an 'advertizing' system. For very brief times, typically during some technology transition period, certain changes can be seen, but given that The Studios have had an unabated dominance of the industry, seems to indicate, that 'advertising' wins.

Taking the 'referenced' filmmakers, we have this entry in the wiki on Ceylan:

----- Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Ceylan's films have often been described as high art.[11] He deals with the estrangement of the individual, natural existentialism, monotonous real human lives and fundamental details of life. He uses static shoots and long takes, usually in natural ambiance, as well as menacing silences along his "stream-of-consciousness aesthetics". He is known for filming his protagonist from behind which, in his view leaves the audiences to speculate on the brooding emotions of characters whose faces are obscured. Having started his career as a photographer, Ceylan makes films on an extremely low budget. His casts generally consist of amateur actors, most of which are his family members, including his mother and father. The characters in Ceylan's movies appear to be people from everyday life.
--------

And for Hogg:

----- Joanna Hogg
Hogg's style is influenced by European and Asian directors such as Eric Rohmer and Yasujirō Ozu,[5] using extended takes and minimal camera movement. She takes the unusual approach of casting a mixture of actors and non-professional actors in her films, such as the landscape painter Christopher Baker in Archipelago. Her depiction of unarguably middle-class characters has prompted some commentators to see her work as spearheading a new type of social realism in British film.[6] [7]
------------

I would suggest that The Industry has not had filmmakers with these styles and aesthetics in any great quantities ever.


So, perhaps in addition to golfball sized grain, the shots are dead as a doornail in terms of static camera, humans suffering from rigor existentialis, and of course definitely no sex scenes that go pop...
 
Ha, Ha, Ha.... Thanks for this thread Patryk and the article. I have been thinking about the confluence of ads and cinema all of this week. I went and saw "Rampart" last weekend at one of the Detroit area's most popular "Art House" theatres when, in that pre movie mix of of commercials we get now a days, they played THIS:


This is "L’Odyssée de Cartier"; three minutes and thirty one seconds of ad agency j*rking off. My first thoughts when I saw that was, "WOW, somebody at the ad agency REALLY, REALLY wants to make movies... and he just padded his resume!".

Interesting BTS here: http://www.odyssee.cartier.us/#/home

Blog posting about the film, with credits: http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2012/lodyssee-de-cartier/

There is no doubt that the London "Ad guys", the Scott brothers, Adrian Lyne, Allan Parker and others had a great impact on the way that movies look. The expansion of cable TV in the late '70's and early '80's and the development of "Channel surfing" with the ubiquitous remote control demanded TV advertisers to develop ways to make their commercials stand out and a bunch of really talented folks rose to the challenge and began to make commercials with cinema production values. I have no problem that these talented individuals parleyed that into successful cinema careers. What ever it takes, ya know! Now I do think that the cinematography style that developed in the '80's has, pretty much, become cliche and, if attempted in contemporary films, is almost laughable (Re: "Burlesque"... There was a lot of problems with that flick, but I couldn't stop laughing at the pretentious over the top cinematography, '80s style!).

As far as popular "Hip" filmmakers "Selling Out" by doing commercials... I got call BS on that. Guys like Wes Anderson and Darren Aronofsky dance that cinema thin line of "Art vs. Commerce" their whole careers and I bet they both are very tired of the extraordinary energy they have to expend to raise the funds that they need to make their, by Hollywood standards, modest movies. So some folks came and give them a big paycheck, I am assuming, to make a commercial. I say, "Power to them". A bucks a buck! I mean, for Pete's sake, Darren Aronofsky got to hang out with JLO and film her dancing..... Sh*t, if that is selling out... Gimme some!!!
 
Last edited:
The problem i have with acceptance of selling out is that each time i watch a well done commercial i think about the army of VERY creative people who spend countless hours executing all those gorgeous images only to sell some silly product - all that energy wasted to say nothing but "Buy me!"
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Is a stream of consciousnesses that you are engaging in?... cause i'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

The article seems to be decrying the influx of 'ad men' into 'filmmaking', and the respondent you quoted, was lamenting the lack of 'filmmakers' resulting from the invasion of 'ad men', and gave a couple of examples. Both of which, from descriptions of their respective styles, sound like the sort of 'high brow' material that is boring as hell.

For Joanne Hogg, mention was made of her connection with Derek Jarman. While I can 'laud' his use of Latin in "Sabastiene"(1976), I would not think that his 'art' is somehow more laudable than "Transformers"... Then there's "The Last of England"(1987), and despite it's reference to the Pre-Raphelite panter, Ford Madox Brown, I again would not hold it up as superior to the current 'slick ad men' productions...

In fact, I'd much rather watch Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner"(1982), or even "Legend"(1985), than some of the apparent 'high art', if these mentioned filmmakers are working towards that goal, while Scott and Co. are making 'Cine du Look'...

Here's a Jarman clip from "The Last of England", definitely not a slick ad man's film... one can notice the grainy film stock, shaky cam, strange frame rates, etc.

 
Last edited:
First lets define “high art.” It’s art that requires more sophistication both on part of the maker and the viewer and by its definition is much less accessible to general audience. And by that in a way it has to be a bit boring because at times ideas that the maker is presenting will not resonate with particular audiences - in other words the audience of “high art” will always be more selective than when we a dealing with pop culture. That, of course, doesn’t mean that all high art is boring it’s just that you have to be in certain stage of your life when those very specific ideas that the maker is dealing with are dear to you (and thus understandable, so that you don’t feel like the maker is dealing with abstractions).

"Blade Runner" brought in all the good from the ad world - the polish necessary to make us believe that what we are watching is real - the polish that's necessary for ad videos because they have absolutely no other content other than "Buy ME!" And thus you have gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot that has no meaning. Of course at first that infusion of ad ideas was a good thing as it extended our own filmmaking lexicon but is it still relevant 30-40 years alter? Scott is repeating himself adding now trivial and meaningless smoke or rain or other atmospheric effect to every shot of his films - he's not inventing or even re-inventing anymore but is becoming his own cliche. He just keep on searching for the pretty. And the search for the pretty is dangerous as often the pretty covers up the lack of meaning in the image and when the image becomes meaningless then all we have left is the dialogue, and when only words remain we stop being filmmakers and start being writers.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
....... art that requires more sophistication both on part of the maker and the viewer and by its definition is much less accessible to general audience. And by that in a way it has to be a bit boring because at times ideas that the maker is presenting will not resonate with particular audiences .....
Click to expand...

Objection, your honour! Art, especially "high art", can not be reduced to be just complicated or complex beyond an audience of commoners abilities to "get it" - as high art may be found or it may emerge from the seemingly most frugal circumstances, utterly common sources and can have very basic and un-complex structures. Neither is a work attempting to be very, very complex and by that "not talking" to an audience automatically art - but a lot of people may believe that.

And this is the ever recurring instrument of minor artists: To hide behind a curtain of artificiality. And often they may be boring not so much because their art is so great as they may believe it is or - worse - even special audiences may believe that too ("Oh, I don't understand it so it has to be deep") but because their art is an instrument for mystification and self-adulation. So I would be careful here.


Patryk_Rebisz said:
And the search for the pretty is dangerous as often the pretty covers up the lack of meaning in the image and when the image becomes meaningless then all we have left is the dialogue, and when only words remain we stop being filmmakers and start being writers.
Click to expand...

"The pretty" is a tool like "The ugly" ..... a tool for what we do - which is storytelling by means of moving pictures and sound. Intellectual emptiness, the absence of meaning, boredom or stupidity can hide behind both the beautiful or the coarse. It is an artist's decision which tool he finds to be the right for his work - if he/she really has something to tell or an idea to transport. And this is the only important thing in the end: What is our story and how do we find the right style to tell it.

Only my 0,02 € of wisdom....
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
The problem i have with acceptance of selling out is that each time i watch a well done commercial i think about the army of VERY creative people who spend countless hours executing all those gorgeous images only to sell some silly product - all that energy wasted to say nothing but "Buy me!"
Click to expand...

David W. Jones said:
What one man refers to as "selling out", another calls earning a living.

It's all a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

I gotta go with David on this. When I see high end commercials well made I see a filmmaking infrastructure that is being paid for by a big company that creative filmmakers, with less money most times, can tap into to make films that are more "Satisfying".

Here in Detroit there is a relatively substantial filmmaking infrastructure, that was built and paid for by the making of commercials and business information films for the Big Three car makers and associated business. When I was coming up, I was able to tap into this infrastructure with small off beat stuff to learn my basics at a higher level. Now, we weren't making high art and the biggest draw our stuff had was scantily clad females, cool sound tracks and an interesting Punk aesthetic, but pro guys worked for us as a change of pace and for fun. They were able to help us out, at very low costs, because they had already made their car payments and house notes by working on commercials and other stuff for the corporations. I thank the Big Three for that!
 
tipota said:
Objection, your honour! Art, especially "high art", can not be reduced to be just complicated or complex beyond an audience of commoners abilities to "get it" - as high art may be found or it may emerge from the seemingly most frugal circumstances, utterly common sources and can have very basic and un-complex structures. Neither is a work attempting to be very, very complex and by that "not talking" to an audience automatically art - but a lot of people may believe that.
Click to expand...

This is not what i said. High art operates on less populistic level thus doesn't appeal to everyone as everyone is at very different stages of their life. Let's say you just got into filmmaking then you gonna eat up all the youtube videos about about shallow DOF, not crossing the line, 3-point lighting, etc. but most sophisticated issues might be out of your league. And the other way around, with years of filmmaking experience you probably have very little interest to pay attention to those basic tutorials.

tipota said:
"The pretty" is a tool like "The ugly" ..... a tool for what we do - which is storytelling by means of moving pictures and sound. Intellectual emptiness, the absence of meaning, boredom or stupidity can hide behind both the beautiful or the coarse. It is an artist's decision which tool he finds to be the right for his work - if he/she really has something to tell or an idea to transport. And this is the only important thing in the end: What is our story and how do we find the right style to tell it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but it's much harder to hide with no ideas behind ugly then pretty.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Absolutely, but it's much harder to hide with no ideas behind ugly then pretty.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Both can be done with a lot of craftsmanship though. Especially as a European I am rather sceptical concerning films that hide the lack of story, idea, position behind the camouflage of rough or dull artiness. In my student days at film academy we got pestered with tons of boring German stuff that shouted "importance alarm" but really had often just the qualities of the emperors cloths.

The question of a filmmaker "selling out" is a complex one and I dare not to have a final position on that. First we work in an industry that is art and an art that is industry to begin with. A writer or a painter needs only to invest time and in the latter case a little money for paint and canvas to execute his/her art . We need, even in the time of digital video, a considerable amount of money to spend on our tools. But we need much more an industrial base that develops and provides us with gear we need. So the frontier between industry and art is extremely fuzzy in fimmaking to begin with.

So we swim in a sea of compromises the moment we decide to become filmmakers as - usually - we try to perform an art that is either expensive, very expensive or incredibly, mind-blowing expensive. We need financing. So usually we can not perform this art without asking ourselves the question to whom we want to "sell out". Someone needs to be convinced to shower us with at least a bucket, a pool or an ocean of money so we can do "it". And there is where in my opinion the "selling out" bit starts - if you are not heir to a fortune or just hit a jackpot in Vegas.

Okay: The Industry. Ad-companies, TV-station or film distributors ay give us money. We know what that means. The monsters of compromise, special interest and outside influence lurking in the dark - but even before we can get acquainted to those creepy little buggers, we first need to sell our "product" to some green-lighting guys . Now - it can be argued that in certain circumstances filmmakers are able to get funding/financing from institutions, especially over here in Europe.

Honestly: There is also here a bit of selling out going on to begin with as on those boards notoriously the not-so-good-writing-spouse of someone who is someone in a major TV-station and all the old guys (like I am one) are sitting, demanding that a "good script" has to be so-and-so-and-so-and-definitely-not-so. At times I find it less humiliating to "sell out" to a commercially driven TV-station that defines it's interest and we can find a compromise concerning a movie than to such "members of board-bugs" ... and, as stated, I am one of them at times... ;-)

Okay, other possibility: You find yourself a king, a dictator, a billionaire or at least the owner of a hot-dog stand who finances your movie. No selling out here? Probably. But much more often the owner of the hot-dog stand may expect you to stay involved with his daughter. Eichinger did find this billionaire widow in Switzerland who would invest (alleged) 16 million € in "The Perfume" - and I dare to think that included at least some selling and compromises like drinking hectolitres of green tea in a chalet above lake Geneva ....and - metaphorically spoken - in an unbecoming sense I dare say, that tea emerged in some mysterious way in the second part of that movie and nearly destroyed it. Was Eisenstein selling out to Stalin? Was Tarkovsky selling out to Breshnev and KGB-head Andropov (who both seemed to have protected him for a long time)? I dare not say yes because I do not know the circumstances especially in the latter cases where one has to work under opressing circumstances - but I feel that wherever we move in our art an ugly toad croaking "sell out" sits in the bushes.

The question is as old as art itself - Haendel needed to "sell out" to the king of England when leaving Germany, Michelangelo was selling out to the pope. And yes, of course you are right that at a certain point the "selling out" part can overtake the message, the content, the motivation and then it's an ugly sight ... but I think it's at times to easy to haul this accusation onto someone .... and concerning Wes Anderson: Why "selling out"? Wasn't he always standing aesthetically with one foot in the ad-people camp?
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
Yes and no. Both can be done with a lot of craftsmanship though. Especially as a European I am rather sceptical concerning films that hide the lack of story, idea, position behind the camouflage of rough or dull artiness. In my student days at film academy we got pestered with tons of boring German stuff that shouted "importance alarm" but really had often just the qualities of the emperors cloths.
Click to expand...

I recall many discussions with friends at the Hip Bagel on these sorts of 'sell out', vs. 'art'. Being filled with youthful idealism, it was quite clear, I would not sully my 'art' for 'common lucre'... well we see how that went...

As it so happened, over the weekend, I attended a "Prometheus" promo(*), that had Arch Ad Man Ridley Scott in attendance... his comment on a question about the 'clean look' of the trailer that was premiered, was "I did grunge, I may have started grunge with "Blade Runner"(1982), but it is way over done these days'...

*I didn't mean to engage in 'groupie' activity, I was just waiting for a Deaf Event presentation that as at the same AMC theater. The Wife was negotiating our seating for that event, and manager happened to mention that the Scott event was going to start, and if we'd like to attend... Apparently there was a mini-ComicCon going on at the Orange County Convention center and the production had a similar Q&A there... actually, it seems that ours was 'better, because there were actual unscripted questions from the audience... where as the Con event had prescripted questions... but I digress...

But back to 'sellout'... back in the olden days there were many discussions about 'selling out' to the commercial powers that be in the 'music industry', in particular the 'counter culture', the 'psychedelic San Francisco' inspired bands...

While "The Monkees" were always seen as a 'sell out' some of our sacred groups began to license their songs to either more pop artists, (aka. by-definition-sell-outs), or commercials, etc. On the other hand other bands got 'mob money' to allow them to continue their fast and wild lifestyle, only to end up being forced to 'sell out' to pay back the evil empire...

Such artists as Bob Dylon, for example, when he released "Nashville Skyline", some called the album a 'sellout' because he affected a 'smooth voice', rather than his more characteristic 'screech' style... (ok maybe that's too much... but I digress...). And of course, it was more commercially successful than some of his previous works...

But as it is, the only band I've considered to have been a 'consistent' sellout... is the Rolling Stones... They should have disappeared long ago... I think they did make a pact with the devil, and the price was Brian Jones at the time...
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Being filled with youthful idealism, it was quite clear, I would not sully my 'art' for 'common lucre'...
Click to expand...

Don't I know the feeling ...... ;-) But then - my true Gods of the cinema were rather called Chaplin, Lubitsch, Wilder, Fellini and now the Coen Brothers et al..... Comedians can at times avoid to get stuck in the dichotomy between the high and the low.

And just now I stumbled across this one here on vimeo...


I do think that artists could (or maybe even should) to a certain extend become good businessmen ... not so much to become millionaires but to reach the point to stay as independent from economic pressures as from the culture vultures as possible. I still like the thought of "us" being storytellers, wandering from camp fire to camp fire, sometimes telling the stories the audiences demands, sometimes telling the one that may be more dear to us....

About The Stones: I wouldn't be too harsh with them ..... all though I have to say that from the "Oldies" I do like to see and hear Jeff Beck much more....
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
... or how films being often made by ad-people (or people with former ad experience) ...
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I reckon most films are adverts - for toys and such like. A movie is looked upon as a product, not an art form. If it turns out to be an art form - great - but that is not the driver - not for the hedge funds that throw money into them.
 
First, cinema is adapted into the ideologies of high art, but is not by definition high art.

Second, we become the bourgeois when we have conversations like this.

Third, so what is the point? Create amazing stories; images be damned? If so, I have a serious problem with that because I have read the comments you all have made about cameras, etc., and know aesthetics means a great deal to every one. So the public likes pretty pictures, so what. You sound like Bleek Gilliam from Mo Better Blues (I guess Shelton isn't high art either, huh?). Thomas Kinkade made billions and was decried by his critics, who made hundreds...
Honestly, selling out is a matter of cash on hand at the time.
Wage your high art war against the ad men and turn down a job making 20 million dollars to direct Drive 2, and I'll respect you while taking your job because the industry is like politics from what i am learning and Sun Tzu said it best; Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
 
By the time Sir Ridley Scott directed his first feature film, THE DEULLISTS, he had directed over 2,500 television commercials. That's how artists get good at their craft -- by practicing it.
 
Carla said:
A movie is looked upon as a product, not an art form. If it turns out to be an art form - great - but that is not the driver - not for the hedge funds that throw money into them.
Click to expand...

That's why filmmaking is not a good medium for "art". It requires far more money than writing a novel, painting, sculpturing, ect. and the time of lots of people performing Herculean tasks that results in a level of quality that most people would be willing to spend $20 on to make its focus anything less than commercial. Sometimes it can be art, but I find the attitude of "I'm going to make ART with my films!" to be ridiculously short-sighted.

After all, how many "art" films are in your movie collection compared to those that primarily entertain? I'd wager the number is low-to-none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top