Obsession with "The Industry"...

[GH2user]

Just read this...

http://workingknowledge.com/blog/?p=868

"The choice of San Francisco had paradoxical properties for young Lucas and the new film company. The bad news was that San Francisco had little of the movie making ecosystem of supporting companies and infrastructure that make Hollywood the mecca for film making. The good news is that San Fransisco therefore had little of the movie making ecosystem that constrained the industry to the prevailing ways of doing things. As a result, Lucas had to invent his own ways of making movies, which led him to develop a long string of innovations in camera handling, special effects, sound, and editing."

Lately, it seems like the biggest thing the DSLR (and other technologies) have brought to the table is increasing dissent for innovation. These days we have hand-held Vista-Vision, s35mm, and any format in-between, yet and all people can talk about is how "DOF is too cliche now" and how cameras without XLR inputs "aren't professional". What is with all this pro-industry dogma? Shouldn't today's generation of all people be the ones in support of developing a new model where the creative people are actually IN control... and not acting as slaves to a 50 year old system of bureaucracy? Are many people just realizing, that since the 35mm format (holy grail of film-making) is now affordable and everyone can shoot on it, that they might just not be good at making films... and instead now blame their shortcomings on lack of the "professional workflow"? Is it all scapegoatism to downplay the fact that maybe 4 people out of every generation are truly good at directing? I don't get it.

After reading that article, watching a few Robert Rodriguez behind-the-scenes features for the 8th time, and being in hollywood (aka. nepotism land) for over a year now, I really started looking at modern production again... and realizing how outdated and convoluted it is. Why do people strive so hard to be part of such an archaic system? Why are modern directors afraid to touch cameras? Why are cinematographers and editors the only "real" film-makers left? When did directing become a "ceremonial" position reserved for people with money, connections, and opinions... instead of for people who truly can see a movie played out in their heads? Why do people still consider creative and technical people to be mutually exclusive? Why is everyone obsessed with being "a professional" and "the way things are done"... ?

Am I the only one that believes people like Robert Rodriguez and Gareth Edwards are the future of directing? ...instead of all these egocentric primadonas who simply just hire the best cinematographers, composers, and editors... then pretend like they made the film?

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[john threat]

good thread!
everyone is scared to talk about this!

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

"primadonas who simply just hire the best cinematographers, composers, and editors... then pretend like they made the film?"

I disagree with this. I don't shoot, edit, do post, do audio, do any of the "technical" aspects on my films. (though I do on my commercial work).

I do however, direct those technical people in order to achieve my vision for the film. It's not "archaic" at all.

 

[Kholi]

J
Lately, it seems like the biggest thing the DSLR (and other technologies) have brought to the table is increasing dissent for innovation. These days we have hand-held Vista-Vision, s35mm, and any format in-between, yet and all people can talk about is how "DOF is too cliche now" and how cameras without XLR inputs "aren't professional". What is with all this pro-industry dogma? Shouldn't today's generation of all people be the ones in support of developing a new model where the creative people are actually IN control... and not acting as slaves to a 50 year old system of bureaucracy? Are many people just realizing, that since the 35mm format (holy grail of film-making) is now affordable and everyone can shoot on it, that they might just not be good at making films... and instead now blame their shortcomings on lack of the "professional workflow"? Is it all scapegoatism to downplay the fact that maybe 4 people out of every generation are truly good at directing? I don't get it.

It could be. And, the sad fact to remember is that not a single person in this thread might be that one, two, three, or four. Which is why we hire good people to help elevate us to a place where we can sustain a life on doing only this, and not working a second or third job.

Your term "egocentric primadona" sounds like one from someone who doesn't work solely in this industry Which isn't meant to be offensive, but this entire post has that mentality behind it: they're all stupid, I'm right, and I'm gonna be the one to make it.

Hopefully, you've got a good cinematographer, good composer, and good editors around when you realize this is a team sport. Be sure that Ro Ro and Edwards have at least two of those.

 

[Zblock]

"primadonas who simply just hire the best cinematographers, composers, and editors... then pretend like they made the film?"

I disagree with this. I don't shoot, edit, do post, do audio, do any of the "technical" aspects on my films. (though I do on my commercial work).

I do however, direct those technical people in order to achieve my vision for the film. It's not "archaic" at all.

Have to agree. I've done all of those things and found myself lacking in all when I've made my films. Now I hire the best person available to do those things for me so my end product closely resembles what I've started in development and pre-pro.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I think you are confused... the system you are describing really ended 50 years ago. You are really grinding against the studio system days where actors were 'lent' to other studios by the studios that essentially owned them, same as cinematographers and others. That studio system died in the 1960's, in my opinion. There is nepotism still, but that is as in ANY industry. The 1960's, 1970's and onward shattered that system (in comparison to how it was), and now, if any, is the best time to be in the industry if you are trying to break in. Indie films are running rampant and the distribution system is changing dramatically with Netflix, Hulu, and online content.

The way you describe today's studio system as it was 1940 Hollywood, makes me think you need to really try a bit longer. It's not easy and everyone who has made it (90% of them anyhow) struggled. Only a few got a silver spoon.

Hollywood is one of the ONLY industries where the 'american dream' can happen. Want to be a business mogul? If you're not a yacht owning trust fund kid from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale, you will likely hit more nepotism, favoritism, elitism and socio-economical prejudice than in the film industry, where an actor from a Wyoming trailer park can become a leading man, and a camera nerd from a texas farm can eventually shoot major films. Point is... the man who directed gone with the wind (Victor Fleming) was a car mechanic who, when fixing a broken camera car, was offered a job as a camera assistant. From there he began proving and developing his talent. Fast forward about two decades and he was directing the biggest film of all time. And that was in the 'studio' days you so fear.

Regarding RR, he did what we all need to as up-and-comers, maybe he did a bit more, point is... he's in the studio system now. He has to be if he wants to play on the top level of cinema. Do you think he could make Sin City as a videography weekend warrior?



Today, "the industry" is simply a place where talented people make a living doing films. If you decide to work outside the industry, you can still 'make it' but you're making large sacrifices such as likely shooting only on weekends and very likely not with the best equipment, people, and locations... thus the challenges of making a successful film begin mounting, making the chance of success much less likely.

Hate it if you want. It's like being a good basketball player and avoiding the NBA. Sure you can kick ass every weekend at the local court in the Bronx... a street ball king... but then you go back to flipping burgers or filing documents as a clerk on the weekdays.... Or you can join up with all the other amazing basketball players and join the NBA and do what you love every day of the week and get paid for it. Sure there are some rules you'll have to abide by, but if you like the game enough, you'll play by the rules.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Just read this...

http://workingknowledge.com/blog/?p=868

"The choice of San Francisco had paradoxical properties for young Lucas and the new film company. The bad news was that San Francisco had little of the movie making ecosystem of supporting companies and infrastructure that make Hollywood the mecca for film making.

I disagree that 1970s San Franco had "little" movie make
Ing ecosystem. While not huge San fransico had a thriving porn production capability and was also a popular stop for Hollywood productions a that wanted a location out of the LA area.

 

[GH2user]

I guess I'm speaking of more from a philosophical perspective... the industry may function fine by itself for now... but do you think that it's going to continue? Or is another paradigm shift immanent? It's so much easier to learn jobs these days. If you've got a photographic eye, then you could easily learn the technical aspects of cinematography within 4-6 months, vs 10 years in yesterday's world without the internet. That with the fact that younger generations are growing up with computers and are just more apt to learning and working with them... things like VFX, editing, coloring, ect... may just be rolled into one mans job in the near future. I mean, if you can light models in 3D space, you could then obviously do it in real life once you learn the technicalities of the lighting equipment.

While it's true that we're probably going to never see a true 1-man film man crew... I think it is approaching something like that due to escalation. It's getting harder and harder for people to break into the industry these days based on ONE talent alone. So if you want to have a serious directors real, that people will treat as serious material when you present it... you have to: A. get lucky and have an amazing cinematographer friend who wants to work with you and has no aspirations of directing himself B. dump allot of money into your projects and hire a real DP (which usually means union BS and more complicated production where you'll have no room to experiment), or C. learn cinematography and shoot it yourself. Most people/students these days are choosing the later.

Maybe it's just my personal philosophy or something then. I just feel that if I'm directing something, and I can't get it to look like what I'm seeing in my head, then it's my fault alone, and it would be personally immoral for me to just "get someone else to shoot it". If I can't achieve a look myself, then I have no business in a directing position. I just wouldn't feel right hiring a cinematographer and then basically taking credit for it. Because in the end, everyone knows that the general population just associates EVERYTHING with the director... it's become a ceremonial position, like the quarterback in football.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/268320/the-directors-series-eli-roth
This is also a great interview with Eli Roth I recently found where he talks about the same things. Basically, to sum it up, he says that (given enough time) the director should be able to do everything on set... or he shouldn't be directing. You hire a DP, production designer, ect. for time saving purposes because of deadlines, not because you need them to achieve your vision.

Regarding RR, he did what we all need to as up-and-comers, maybe he did a bit more, point is... he's in the studio system now. He has to be if he wants to play on the top level of cinema. Do you think he could make Sin City as a videography weekend warrior?

Yea, that's exactly the escalation I'm talking about. RR broke in by making basically a high-quality B-movie (El Mariachi) for next to nothing, and now makes films like Sin City. If you're pursuing directing these days... shooting something like El Mariachi is not going to cut it. You're going to have to be able to produce something like Sin City from your garage, then once you get noticed and more money... it escalates even further from there to the point where 20 years down the road, films may be made entirely by that "fat little girl from ohio". Almost like Darwinism of film making....

Hollywood is one of the ONLY industries where the 'american dream' can happen. Want to be a business mogul? If you're not a yacht owning trust fund kid from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale, you will likely hit more nepotism, favoritism, elitism and socio-economical prejudice than in the film industry, where an actor from a Wyoming trailer park can become a leading man, and a camera nerd from a texas farm can eventually shoot major films.

Good point. It's definitely not as bad as some of the other industries...

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

" If you've got a photographic eye, then you could easily learn the technical aspects of cinematography within 4-6 months, vs 10 years in yesterday's world without the internet. "

No, you can't, not even close.

You also can't magically acquire the ears of a trained sound man that can hear the HVAC unit kick on half a block away.
You can't acquire the talented and skilled eye of an art director that can transform the same barely furnished room into CIA headquarters or a room in an Indian Brothel.
You can't acquire the skills of a trained makeup artist that can make the same woman look like trailer trash or the queen of England.
etc...
etc...
etc...

You aren't "taking credit for their work". They are listed in the credits. You are providing the "vision", the "direction". The cinematographer doesn't pick the shots, YOU pick the shots. He "just" executes them.

 

[GH2user]

" If you've got a photographic eye, then you could easily learn the technical aspects of cinematography within 4-6 months, vs 10 years in yesterday's world without the internet. "

No, you can't, not even close.

Yes, you can easily. ...if you've got the eye. You can't learn to have "the eye", but if you've got it, you can learn the technical stuff fairly quickly. I've got a few photographer friends who (once they learned the two 180-degree rules) turned into really great cinematographers. In fact, it only took them a weekend really. They saw some 7D stuff I shot in an exhibition, liked it, and asked me how they could do the same with their 5D/7D's. I showed them the basics over a weekend, and now they shoot some really amazing stuff. It's not that difficult with today's tools. Some people make it seem that way (to protect their jobs and whatnot, which is understandable), but it really isn't that difficult. And it certainly isn't a craft that takes a lifetime to perfect anymore...

You aren't "taking credit for their work". They are listed in the credits. You are providing the "vision", the "direction". The cinematographer doesn't pick the shots, YOU pick the shots. He "just" executes them.

Come on. No more beating around the bush... the director (in the public's) eye gets credit for everything and you know it.

'We' know otherwise, but generally, people don't know what the hell a DP is. Something "looks" good, and they associate it with the director.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

and a camera nerd from a texas farm can eventually shoot major films.

Bahahahahahahahaha!


:cheesy:

 

[Dan Pears]

I shoot all of my own stuff because I'm too immature as a director to proficiently tell a DOP how I want something shot - yeah I'm an Ok photographer, and can get my point accross, but I yearn for the day I meet my creative kin in a photographer.

A director has a lot more to worry about than the camera. I think it is a naive and ignorant view to think a director who collaborates with the best in their fields is any less an artist.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Ever wonder what an A-List Hollywood DP would say about all that great cinematography work of yours?

You should...

Yes, you can easily. ...if you've got the eye. You can't learn to have "the eye", but if you've got it, you can learn the technical stuff fairly quickly. I've got a few photographer friends who (once they learned the two 180-degree rules) turned into really great cinematographers. In fact, it only took them a weekend really. They saw some 7D stuff I shot in an exhibition, liked it, and asked me how they could do the same with their 5D/7D's. I showed them the basics over a weekend, and now they shoot some really amazing stuff. It's not that difficult with today's tools. Some people make it seem that way (to protect their jobs and whatnot, which is understandable), but it really isn't that difficult. And it certainly isn't a craft that takes a lifetime to perfect anymore...



Come on. No more beating around the bush... the director (in the public's) eye gets credit for everything and you know it.

'We' know otherwise, but generally, people don't know what the hell a DP is. Something "looks" good, and they associate it with the director.

 

[GH2user]

You are providing the "vision", the "direction". The cinematographer doesn't pick the shots, YOU pick the shots. He "just" executes them.

But the art in cinema in general is ALL about the execution. Anyone can say they "have a vision" and then with enough money, hire the best cinematographer, editor, and composer and create a pretty good film.

For example, if you have a "vision" for a painting, but hire a painter and just "direct" him (basically just tell him what you like as he's painting it) would you get credit for the painting in the end?

 

[GH2user]

Ever wonder what an A-List Hollywood DP would say about all that great cinematography work of yours?

You should...

Well, this discussion is meant to be more philosophic and objective in nature... so this is kind of irrelevant. I never even mentioned that I wanted to be a cinematographer or director anywhere in this thread... but apparently some of this thread struck a chord, because you're kind of resorting to personal attacks. I only said that a few photographers saw some stuff I did on a 7D, and since they also had 7D's asked if I could give some pointers on photography for video (i.e. cinematography)... that's all.

But, anyways... I don't know if you could ever get a honest response from a working Hollywood DP. It seems like their opinions would always be a subjective response. If your work is 'too' good, they may feel threatened and offer some vindictive advice like "you'd be a good AC" or something to that effect. I mean, if you were really shooting hollywood caliber work on a 5D... and then showed it to a working DP... what would you expect him to do? Say "wow, that's much better than my work", tell the producer and then resign? Nope. Not a chance. It's cut-thought out here. People will only help you out here to the point where their own job/work isn't being questioned.

Although it really doesn't really matter how good my work is for this discussion... apparently a Disney producer looked at some of my work for a friend, and ok'ed it for a Cannes bound short. So that's something good. Although I don't know who it is, nor have I talked to him personally. But, again, this is irrelevant for this discussion. Do you tell people on a football forum that they can't comment on games because they're personally not a "working quarterback" or coach?

 

[Kholi]

Well, this discussion is meant to be more philosophic and objective in nature... so this is kind of irrelevant. I never even mentioned that I wanted to be a cinematographer or director anywhere in this thread... but apparently some of this thread struck a chord, because you're kind of resorting to personal attacks. I only said that a few photographers saw some stuff I did on a 7D, and since they also had 7D's asked if I could give some pointers on photography for video (i.e. cinematography)... that's all.

It might be...

...Why are cinematographers and editors the only "real" film-makers left? When did directing become a "ceremonial" position reserved for people with money, connections, and opinions... instead of for people who truly can see a movie played out in their heads? Why do people still consider creative and technical people to be mutually exclusive? Why is everyone obsessed with being "a professional" and "the way things are done"... ? ...instead of all these egocentric primadonas who simply just hire the best cinematographers, composers, and editors... then pretend like they made the film?

Your general insult to a large community of people either do this for a living (not as a side gig) or those whom you basically just called "Prima Donna" for hiring people who are good at what they do to create a great product. Where great product is defined as someone willing to share, and/or pay for said product.

But, anyways... I don't know if you could ever get a honest response from a working Hollywood DP. It seems like their opinions would always be a subjective response. If your work is 'too' good, they may feel threatened and offer some vindictive advice like "you'd be a good AC" or something to that effect. I mean, if you were really shooting hollywood caliber work on a 5D... and then showed it to a working DP... what would you expect him to do? Say "wow, that's much better than my work", tell the producer and then resign? Nope. Not a chance. It's cut-thought out here. People will only help you out here to the point where their own job/work isn't being questioned.

Your imagination of what "hollywood" is like will keep you out of the working industry. Or you'll end up like Troy Duffy.

Although it really doesn't really matter how good my work is for this discussion... apparently a Disney producer looked at some of my work for a friend, and ok'ed it for a Cannes bound short. So that's something good. Although I don't know who it is, nor have I talked to him personally. But, again, this is irrelevant for this discussion. Do you tell people on a football forum that they can't comment on games because they're personally not a "working quarterback" or coach?

At least your work is here on the forum for people to look at, I can respect that. There are a number of people here who talk a lot but don't post any of their work. You are definitely allowed to and encouraged to speak your mind, you're also encouraged to think before you post and passively insult those who are working.

 

[GH2user]

Your general insult to a large community of people either do this for a living (not as a side gig) or those whom you basically just called "Prima Donna" for hiring people who are good at what they do to create a great product. Where great product is defined as someone willing to share, and/or pay for said product.

I didn't call every director a "prima donna". And it wasn't aimed at any particular group... it was more of just a facetious statement aimed at the general mentaility of some directors. I don't want to name names... but you can probably guess. I mean people can rip on Tebow for praying during games, but I'm not allowed to call some directors "primma donnas"? Come on...

I guess to sum up this thread in a better way and make it more philosophical and hypothetical...

In 100 years, if people can directly suck movies out of their heads... do you think most modern directors would be able to create an entire movie this way? Or would they still need others's ideas and talents to fully develop them? I think that Soderberg, Fincher, RR, Gareth Edwards, ect could... but definitely not the majority.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Mind if I ask your age?

 

[GH2user]

Mind if I ask your age?

If there's really a good reason for it, but I don't really see one right now... this thread isn't about me.

But I can tell you this... I'm either a mouthy, overly ambitious, 20 something who hates authority and the status-qoe... or an angry, disgruntled, 40 year old who never "made it" in the industry. Take your pick... :laugh:

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

If there's really a good reason for it, but I don't really see one right now... this thread isn't about me.

But I can tell you this... I'm either a mouthy, overly ambitious, 20 something who hates authority and the status-qoe... or an angry, disgruntled, 40 year old who never "made it" in the industry. Take your pick... :laugh:

Your use of emoticons suggests the 20 something option. Plus if you were a 40 year old, you'd be complaining about why nobody is shooting film anymore.




As I said earlier.... making a good film is incredibly hard. 1/3rd of films I watch in theaters, I don't like or I think are 'bad' films. And those are multi-million dollar productions with an entire professional crew of talented people with plenty of experience and resources. In reality, those directors of the 'bad films' are usually better than 99.999% of anyone in this country at making films. The fact is, it's really f#$king hard to make a good film. Even big directors and well respected filmmakers make bad films. So yes, I've seen many bad directors who may not deserve to be where they are, but more times than not, they are simply talented individuals who fail at doing the near impossible. Let's please not forget how incredibly difficult it is, and that even if you are a good director, it takes a perfect storm to create a good film.

Did I say that it's really flippin' hard to make a good film? Because it is.