Obsession with "The Industry"...

Ted Spencer said:
I agree we're pretty much all gonna make stinkers occasionally, but also that whatever we can learn about spotting ourselves doing it before it's too late is gonna be time well spent...
Click to expand...

It can be even more complicated: THE GANGS OF NEW YORK is a film I really and dearly love including everything that went wrong (a lot). And while it did not work for several reasons - easiest to detect in hindsight, like so often - it's hard for me to call it a "stinker": seeing the gaping holes in the hull of this wreck it still shows what a grand "undertaking", what an incredible adventure gone wrong it was.

Hey, even the "Hindenburg" was a great and marvellous construction for it's time until it went up in flames and the Swedish King had his mighty battleship "Wasa" which did sink at the occasion of it's maiden voyage just because the King had set the date and would not listen to people who warned him, the ship had not balanced the ballast in the appropriate manner, it had too many canons aboard and the winds where unfriendly..... else it was a fine and beautiful ship.... ;-)

I have a lot of mercy with shipwrecked movies (and their crew) as long as I find something in them worth finding...
 
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment said:
That's how I watch every Lars Von Trier film.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the Danish Super-Enigma - if he would have wanted to make a joke in Cannes he should sung "smörrebröd, smörrebröd - römpömpöm" instead of saying he was a Nazi and the kitchen would not have gone up in flames. He has very, very strange, interesting and sometimes very good ideas but over all I am just not sure what to make of his films. But that's me - for others he is a demi-god.
 
tipota said:
Oh yes, the Danish Super-Enigma - if he would have wanted to make a joke in Cannes he should sung "smörrebröd, smörrebröd - römpömpöm" instead of saying he was a Nazi and the kitchen would not have gone up in flames. He has very, very strange, interesting and sometimes very good ideas but over all I am just not sure what to make of his films. But that's me - for others he is a demi-god.
Click to expand...

They are film theory essays more than films.
 
tipota said:
It can be even more complicated: THE GANGS OF NEW YORK is a film I really and dearly love including everything that went wrong (a lot). And while it did not work for several reasons - easiest to detect in hindsight, like so often - it's hard for me to call it a "stinker": seeing the gaping holes in the hull of this wreck it still shows what a grand "undertaking", what an incredible adventure gone wrong it was.
Click to expand...

Been a while since I saw it, and much studying about filmmaking and screenwriting has taken place for me in the meantime, but I remember really liking this film, brutal as it was (heavy violence is ok with me if it's fully justified by the story, and this one was IMO). But as for its "not working" I'm not quite sure that's fair (except as one's personal opinion of course, which one is entitled to, if that's what you meant). While it wasn't a big success, it did gross $190M globally on a $132M production/P&A budget (according to the-numbers.com) and scored 75% on the 'tomatometer'. So while I'm sure it was a disappointment to the studio (and perhaps Scorsese?) I'd have a hard time regarding it as all that big a dud. That would be "Gigli", for example.

But I'd have to watch it again I suppose, with my currently better trained sensibilities, to see if I find the kinds of flaws you're referring to. To that end, could you describe a little of what you found not to like in it?
 
Ted Spencer said:
Been a while since I saw it, and much studying about filmmaking and screenwriting has taken place for me in the meantime, but I remember really liking this film, brutal as it was (heavy violence is ok with me if it's fully justified by the story, and this one was IMO). But as for its "not working" I'm not quite sure that's fair (except as one's personal opinion of course, which one is entitled to, if that's what you meant). While it wasn't a big success, it did gross $190M globally on a $132M production/P&A budget (according to the-numbers.com) and scored 75% on the 'tomatometer'. So while I'm sure it was a disappointment to the studio (and perhaps Scorsese?) I'd have a hard time regarding it as all that big a dud. That would be "Gigli", for example.

But I'd have to watch it again I suppose, with my currently better trained sensibilities, to see if I find the kinds of flaws you're referring to. To that end, could you describe a little of what you found not to like in it?
Click to expand...

The only Scorsese film that really does not work for me on any level, is "New York, New York"(1977). And in interviews I've seen... apparently on retrospect, Scorsese sees problems...

On the other hand "Hugo"(2011) I'd recommend, which I think is Scorsese's first foray into digital, and on top of that 3-D...
 
Ted Spencer said:
But I'd have to watch it again I suppose, with my currently better trained sensibilities, to see if I find the kinds of flaws you're referring to. To that end, could you describe a little of what you found not to like in it?
Click to expand...

Actually: I did like it and still do in a way and that especially because over here in Europe there where so much mixed feelings about it. But I did, while being a complete Scorses Fan, share these extremely mixed feelings. And for the studio it bombed, at least here, where completely different and much higher figures where expected.

The short form: It was on the visual side - art-work, costumes, make-up, cinematography, even they way it was choreographed - imho over-produced. Meaning that what the different departments had done, was absolutely marvellous but added together it was just much too much. Every shot, every set-up like a graphic by Tenniel or Hoghart. Extremely well done, even the tons of dirt in picture would look "picturesque". But so it became over-freight (if this expression is allowed in English) that it did not really fly.

Second the story did "wobble" and at times not really move between three vectors: The love story, the story of the revenge and the political-criminal story plus the incredible socio-history of "Five Points". This made in my opinion the story telling and the emotional side "fuzzy". Because either the original script and/or through what happened in the long phase of shooting, seems to have blurred the course of "navigation". And the three layers of story stood in each others way at times. This interacted with the other decision: With aesthetics like the above one is bordering more to a musical-stage (a perfectly well arranged one), so the story should have needed to make the emotional moments more central - be more "catholic", even more "italian" - or, if the other sides where more important for the makers, it would have needed to be more realistic, rough and less stylish. So the movie tried to cover a bit too much ground.

Third the cast. While I set aside Daniel Day-Lewis for the moment whom I adore, I had a problem not with DiCaprio or Diaz themselves, because I like what they do as actors, but that two people would be central who both were a bit too civilised, slightly middle- to upper-class'ish in nearly every connotation. Apart from what they as great actors did or could achieve under the circumstances. Either one could have played the part he/she played had the counterpart been different - either let her be a real tough cookie, a real street cat that needed only to be freed through love or let him be a very, very young Keith Richards who takes a slightly more civilised girl with him. Their playing fields were too much on the near-same level in my view. Third variant, take the two but then you have to ask yourself should the part of Bill Cutting - creepy as it was - been played with such an almost aristocratic elegance or should Cutting have more pure brutality.

For me these three factors stole the movies final success - both artistically and economically - which it dearly deserved. One can say it did not totally crash, true - still it made imho a very bumpy emergency landing. And, in danger of repetition, I still like it a lot. Will watch it this evening, maybe.... ;-)

So, another bout of teutonic wise-cracking? Hindsight? Nitpicking? Yes. Absolutely - if you see it so. For me it's just interesting what can happen to even one of the true masters of the art.
 
Thanks for this very thoughtful, detailed reply. Most interesting... Now I'm gonna have to go watch it again too. I'm a big Scorsese fan, so I expect I'll still like it. But fresh eyes can surprise...

(and rhyme too)

: )


tipota said:
Actually: I did like it and still do in a way and that especially because over here in Europe there where so much mixed feelings about it. But I did, while being a complete Scorses Fan, share these extremely mixed feelings. And for the studio it bombed, at least here, where completely different and much higher figures where expected.

The short form: It was on the visual side - art-work, costumes, make-up, cinematography, even they way it was choreographed - imho over-produced. Meaning that what the different departments had done, was absolutely marvellous but added together it was just much too much. Every shot, every set-up like a graphic by Tenniel or Hoghart. Extremely well done, even the tons of dirt in picture would look "picturesque". But so it became over-freight (if this expression is allowed in English) that it did not really fly.

Second the story did "wobble" and at times not really move between three vectors: The love story, the story of the revenge and the political-criminal story plus the incredible socio-history of "Five Points". This made in my opinion the story telling and the emotional side "fuzzy". Because either the original script and/or through what happened in the long phase of shooting, seems to have blurred the course of "navigation". And the three layers of story stood in each others way at times. This interacted with the other decision: With aesthetics like the above one is bordering more to a musical-stage (a perfectly well arranged one), so the story should have needed to make the emotional moments more central - be more "catholic", even more "italian" - or, if the other sides where more important for the makers, it would have needed to be more realistic, rough and less stylish. So the movie tried to cover a bit too much ground.

Third the cast. While I set aside Daniel Day-Lewis for the moment whom I adore, I had a problem not with DiCaprio or Diaz themselves, because I like what they do as actors, but that two people would be central who both were a bit too civilised, slightly middle- to upper-class'ish in nearly every connotation. Apart from what they as great actors did or could achieve under the circumstances. Either one could have played the part he/she played had the counterpart been different - either let her be a real tough cookie, a real street cat that needed only to be freed through love or let him be a very, very young Keith Richards who takes a slightly more civilised girl with him. Their playing fields were too much on the near-same level in my view. Third variant, take the two but then you have to ask yourself should the part of Bill Cutting - creepy as it was - been played with such an almost aristocratic elegance or should Cutting have more pure brutality.

For me these three factors stole the movies final success - both artistically and economically - which it dearly deserved. One can say it did not totally crash, true - still it made imho a very bumpy emergency landing. And, in danger of repetition, I still like it a lot. Will watch it this evening, maybe.... ;-)

So, another bout of teutonic wise-cracking? Hindsight? Nitpicking? Yes. Absolutely - if you see it so. For me it's just interesting what can happen to even one of the true masters of the art.
Click to expand...
 
OK just spent an hour reading this thread, clicking links and looking up poster's profiles and work as I went. Why? I am giving a presentation in a few weeks with the dubious title "Democratization of Video...good?" I do custom presentations for clients but rarely give one myself, so I signed up to a public speaking support group. Dorky, I know. But if I'm going to tell other people how to do something, I'd better stay sharp myself. Speaking of which...

My question to GH2user is this: why not give some examples of your work? Or of those friends to whom you referred that learned the basics in a weekend?
Seriously. If it's good can I show a few grabs/clips?

As for the "Dinosaurs", they may be from old, but they ruled the planet with impunity for 160 million years. Humans...200 thousand. So far.

Craig
 
Pickthorne said:
OK just spent an hour reading this thread, clicking links and looking up poster's profiles and work as I went. Why? I am giving a presentation in a few weeks with the dubious title "Democratization of Video...good?" I do custom presentations for clients but rarely give one myself, so I signed up to a public speaking support group. Dorky, I know. But if I'm going to tell other people how to do something, I'd better stay sharp myself. Speaking of which...

My question to GH2user is this: why not give some examples of your work? Or of those friends to whom you referred that learned the basics in a weekend?
Seriously. If it's good can I show a few grabs/clips?

As for the "Dinosaurs", they may be from old, but they ruled the planet with impunity for 160 million years. Humans...200 thousand. So far.

Craig
Click to expand...

Some Dinosaurs are old... perhaps dinosaurs due to lack of motivation to take up something new... but I sense that quite a few people here are not 'old'... In fact I'd be surprised if many actually made the 'hard' choice not to buy a Bolex in 1970... because it cost too much to make films...

Which leads me to 'democratization of the technology of the art of filmmaking'... a short time ago I did a comparison in current dollars to that $300 Bolex I passed up in 1970... the current dollars was about $1700. Which just happens to be 1) the price + a little extra of a GH2+lens package, or 2) Canon 7D body only... and with another 3K or so, a computer+editing, one can make as good a film as anyone coming off the streets in 1970, buying a Bolex, buying film, processing film, editing film, and then wondering why the result looked like s**t... repeat the process until money is exhausted, or one does become successful...

Instead of the $3K of computer + software, one use to spend for filmstock, processing, and cutting rental fees.... and did I mention sound... no, because that $300 Bolex was not sound sync'd, in fact it was a windup watch works... to get a Beaulieu or whatever (there was a Bolex motor driven option as well...) with a motor and sound sync'd recording... that was a couple of K at least... in 1970 dollars... for a camera+sound-recorder+mic, etc.

On the other hand the windup Bolex could be used to make cheap porn for fraternity stag parties... I use to have morals about such things... age has faded those away...

But on to the democratization process... while the dollars are around the same relatively speaking, various measures indicate that 'youth' have far more spending power than in 1970, parents, drug running, whatever, there just seems to be more money available to younger people, and so, more people may choose to take up shooting a camera and making films...
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
Actually: I did like it and still do in a way and that especially because over here in Europe there where so much mixed feelings about it.[...]
[...]So, another bout of teutonic wise-cracking? Hindsight? Nitpicking? Yes. Absolutely - if you see it so. For me it's just interesting what can happen to even one of the true masters of the art.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess the thread has gone off in a weird direction. But since you mentioned some things, tangentially, I may as well hit you up for an explanation for something that's been bothering me now for close to 20 years. And I figure you are in a perfect position to explain this, because you work there, and also because I find myself so often in agreement with you and respect your opinion.

So, tipota, please explain to me, why has German cinema, since WWII, been such a limp affair? So devoid of giant figures of innovation and really, even excitement? Yes, there are known directors, what with your Wolfgang Petersen (only one decent film, Das Boot), Emmerich (hack), but giants? I mean, I like Herzog mostly for documentaries (though "Aguirre: wrath of god" was a masterpiece), and I guess some people like Fassbinder (overrated), Wim Wenders is pleasant enough... but where are the giants?

It's really not about language, where we could say Britain had an advantage, but countries like Italy, or France produced not only giants of cinema at the Fellini or Godard level that changed film as an art form, but gave rise to whole new chapters of cinema, such as Neo-Realism, New Wave etc. We are talking about both on individual level, where even little Sweden produced a Bergman, and on the impact on cinema world-wide, where influence from Europe, post WWII affected world cinema - as did Italian, or French - including Hollywood. Of course, historically, before WWII, German cinema had a profound influence on the world and on Hollywood, and of course during WWII through German filmmakers who emigrated to the U.S. But I'm talking about post WWII, where there was huge impact from European cinema, but very little from Germany.

It puzzles me. It cannot be money - Germany is rich, and has had great support for film that's no worse than Italy or France. It cannot be population - Germany is much larger than France or Italy or the UK, the largest in Europe. Germany is in the best position as far as size of internal film market. It cannot be technical infrastructure - Germany makes more film equipment, including cameras than any other European country.

So what gives? Why such mediocrity, such lack, such disappointment. I mean of course, comparatively speaking, comparing to other European countries. And it goes deeper than just lack of giant directors - it's also the comparative lack of great international star actors too. There are stars from France, Italy, Spain, UK, but we don't hear much about German stars on the international circuit. Yes, there are, and were some (K. Kinski, N. Kinski, CM Brandauer - Austrian, but let's count him), but it's like with directors... very thin field compared to other countries, and no superstars.

I've lived in Europe, and even produced indie films there, I have a lot of friends in the industry all over Europe, and nobody can give me a good answer. Tipota is my last hope: warum also Bratwurst mit Scheiße?
 
OldCorpse said:
So, tipota, please explain to me, why has German cinema, since WWII, been such a limp affair? So devoid of giant figures of innovation and really, even excitement? Yes, there are known directors, what with your Wolfgang Petersen (only one decent film, Das Boot), Emmerich (hack), but giants? I mean, I like Herzog mostly for documentaries (though "Aguirre: wrath of god" was a masterpiece), and I guess some people like Fassbinder (overrated), Wim Wenders is pleasant enough... but where are the giants?
Click to expand...

Because Hollywood is German Film...

From my perspective... So. Cal... before the Third Reich there was quite a bit of 'lend lease' between the US and German Film industries, especially during the silent era. A Louise Brooks could end up in a German production, and Germans could end up in a US production. The movement of material was just a matter of translating intertitles.

While some could say that there was similar things going on between France and the US, but I don't think it was as much.

Then the Third Reich.... where even if one was not jewish, unless one conformed to the NSDAP ideology one was prohibited from public writing... even Erich Kaestner, someone whose pre and post war writings were 'hardly' Downtown Moscow Communist ideology pieces was prohibited from writing... although he found ways around it, just as the Blacklisters did in the 1950's in the US.

And speaking of that era in the US... quite a few blacklisted americans ended up in France, that combined with the young french 'la Nouvelle vague' was then fed back in to the US in the 60's...

After the war a few Germans returned to Germany from exile in the US, but even Fritz Lang didn't really take up where he left off... or really contribute to reconstructing German Film...

This may be an obscure reference... but in the years before the Third Reich, there was a group called 'Comedian Harmonists'. The group was quite popular in Germany until 1934, when the jewish members left. Each group performed independently, the jewish group having been reformed in the US, and the german group renaming itself 'Das Meistersextett', but neither group became a success like the original. The jewish group faced prejudice in the US because of their german langauge repitoire, the german group, the heavy hand of the NSDAP. The point being that sometimes the sum of the whole is greater than the parts...

From a talk that Werner Herzog gave, now quite a few years ago, I got the impression that post war Germany Filmmakers had to re-invent 'filmmaking', and had no giant shoulders upon which to stand, since after the war, there was prohibitions by the Allies on film workers who had 'collaborated'... with the NSDAP...

Think of it this way... if every director, major actor, writer, had been either forced from the US during McCarthy, or upon return of sanity, any actor, director or writer who had given names in the hearings was forced into retirement... wait... in the case of Reagan... maybe that would have been a good thing... anyway... what would the 60's and 70's US film industry have looked like...

I think it would have been as bleak as that of postwar Germany.
 
OldCorpse said:
So, tipota, please explain to me, why has German cinema, since WWII, been such a limp affair?
Click to expand...

Actually there is (was?) a lot of hype around "The Berlin School" this new german film movement that you know is something because of its fancy name! In particular, the work of Christian Petzold, especially "The State I Am In", "Jerichow", and "Yella". While they definitely require patient viewing, these are lean, tough narrative films with (forgive me) a lot of stereotypically german characteristics: precise, angular, terse. I would not be surprised at all if Petzold were to really break out internationally and make something like "A Prophet" (insanely amazing) very very soon.

Also, that Haneke guy but he might be considered Austrian? Also, i think you might be undervaluing fassbinder and herzog and 70s german cinema a tad, but fair enough. One guy who probably should be more known is Scholndorff (sp) "The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum" is incredibly incredibly good. I cannot see a single regular poster on this forum not loving it, it has the force and intensity of all of the demi-gods here: fincher, nolan, ridley etc. etc. Seriously, you really need to check it out. And hey, early wenders is more than just pleasant??? "False Move" is kingpin filmmaking, its got to be.

Tipota, would LOVE to read your take on these filmmakers and others from your home country, especially the homeland reception of "Berlin School". (I kind of worry it might be received much to the same way americans look at mumblecore)
 
It's all true about pre-WWII and WWII German-Hollywood connection, as I prefaced my whole post with. But I am specifically interested in post WWII. It's bleak in comparison with French and Italian cinema. And OK, let's say they lost the old generation of emigrants, but c'mon, the New Wave was a new generation anyhow in all those countries, directors in their 20's and 30's, those were young people in France, Italy, the UK etc. Regardless, it's been over 60 years since WWII - time enough for two generations to arise and replenish the ranks. I don't think it had anything to do with political legacies, after all, the other axis powers, Japan and Italy had their film industries bloom after WWII.

I'm not saying there are NO directors of note from post WWII Germany, or NO stars - just that in comparison to the potential of as large a country and culture as Germany, it's done very poorly compared to smaller countries. The example of so-called "Berlin School" is a good one, as it exemplifies the issue - ask yourself how many people have even heard of this "school" internationally... and now ask yourself what the more famous movements in cinema are of the recent times - Dogme, really just established by LvT and Vinterberg, both from Denmark. And look at how pitifully small Denmark is compared to Germany in every way, including the film industry. But everyone heard of Dogme, and nobody heard of the "Berlin School". Even tiny countries, in Communist times, have had more excitement - like the whole Czech cinema. Heck, people are getting more excited by South Korean cinema than German. I have lived with great hope of a wonderful new flowering of the film art in Germany, for twenty years now - because I love new stuff. I cannot believe the Germans are letting us down so much!

Something is rotten. I just can't figure out what. Tipota will explain it all, and at last there will be wisdom and clarity on this issue!
 
OldCorpse said:
Something is rotten. I just can't figure out what. Tipota will explain it all, and at last there will be wisdom and clarity on this issue!
Click to expand...

Ach Du liebe Güte! Wisdom and clarity from someone who can't find his behind at times? Now, if I do that, I will find it easily as a lot of my colleauges will kick it.

As we have completely derailed this thread for the second time - and this time it's not even my fault, oldcorpse - I will open a new one here, okay? For people interested in the question: Where are the Germans? A directors perspective (they will kill me at home for that). Please give me a bit of time as I have to finish something my producer waits for much too long. Half a day my time zone. What I have to offer are hints, allegations and speculations.

Give the others a chance to find back to the dinosaurs vs. weekend-trained oscar-prone-cinematic-shooters discussion.

postscriptum: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ns-are-(not-yet)-coming-directors-perspective.
 
Last edited:
Pickthorne said:
My question to GH2user is this: why not give some examples of your work? Or of those friends to whom you referred that learned the basics in a weekend?
Seriously. If it's good can I show a few grabs/clips?
Click to expand...

Well... I guess because this thread got more intense than I thought it would. And I don't want my work to be ostracized just out of spite... lol

But anyways, I don't think anyone in this thread really needs to show their work to take part in the discusion. It's about ideas and the future of filmmaking... not just based on "what you've done". Just like how people speculate on sports, coaching, and playing... even if they've never done it. It usually takes a person outside of the system to see something for what it is. Once you're involved in a particular industry, and your job, family, and life depend on it, your views usually become more subjective and defensive. Especially if the "next generation" of filmmaking, really does mean less crews and jobs. When other people here have said they have real industry experience, I don't ask to see their resumes, I just assume they're telling the truth for the sake of the discussion. Proving what someone can and can't do is kind of irrelevant in a "hypothetical" thread. I may never direct, DP, or even work on a feature film... but from the projects I have worked on, seen, read and thought about... I can form my opinion that some jobs seems like they can be consolidated and/or be done differently... and that the "system" seems outdated when compared to the tools and technology we have today.

For example, the whole director vs. DP thing. I totally understand WHY a DP and cinematographer was needed in traditional FILM making. Film was hard to deal with... knowing the different stocks, ratings, exposure, and how the film responded to certain lights, ect... was ONLY gained through experience and testing. Directors just wouldn't have time for it and it would end up being expensive if they attempted it. But with modern digital cameras... they're the size of viewfinders and the exposure, color temp, ect are all real-time. This is a HUGE advantage to a director, because now they really can capture thier vision first hand and watch the performances the way they are intended to be seen... through the LENS! Nobody cares if a performance was good while filming... the ONLY thing that matters is how it looks when played back on screen. Film is a VISUAL medium, the camera angles, color, and lighting are equal, if not MORE important than the performances themselves. If two actors give an oscar worthy dramatic performance in a scene, but it was shot with a 14mm lens from 20 feet away... then it's going to suck, no matter how well the "direction" of the actors was. On the other hand though, if you have two mediocre/bad actors... a scene can still be great, and the acting "perceived" as good, based on the visual cues, angles, lighting, music, and editing.

Directing, IMO, is not just about the story. That's the writers job. Directing is about the PERCEPTION of a story. And if a director cannot make something look professional, or "film-like" enough, to be perceived by an audience as a "real movie" or a "real story"... then he/she has failed. Saying "oh I needed a better DP or editor" is just a cop-out for not really knowing the craft well enough to tell said story.

Like I said before, and still believe... if you have a top-notch screenplay with amazing actors, an oscar winning cinematographer and editor, great AD's and script supervisors to keep organized for you... then directing becomes nothing more than one person's subjective option... and ANYONE could do it. I just don't see why anyone should be given control of a team of artists if they are not capable of the same work themselves (given enough time). I get the fact that studios say, "hey, we only have x amount of time to shoot this", and you need to hire extra people so you can delegate... that's fine. But if someone spontaneously combusts on set... the director should probably be able to fill in that position.
 
Last edited:
GH2user said:
Well... I guess because this thread got more intense than I thought it would. And I don't want my work to be ostracized just out of spite... lol
Click to expand...

Definitely not the reason why your work would be "ostracized". Which I'm not even sure makes sense at all, to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top