Obsession with "The Industry"...

Here's the crew list for Rodriguez's "Machete":

Yea, point taken. But Machete probably also had a very specific release date it needed to hit... and I'm sure the people funding the projects felt more comfortable using proven production methods than taking a gamble. But RR still had allot of involvement other directors seem to shy away from.. which is cool. He seems, from what I've seen and read, to always approach projects with the mentality of "how can we do this differently?" rather than... "well that's just how it's done".

Which leads me to specify my original question even further... I should have said in the beginning, "why are beginning/aspiring filmmakers so obsessed with the industry methods?" I get it, once you're established, nobody is going to let you tool around with their production money while you try to perfect doing 7 jobs... and you probably aren't going to have the time or ambition to attempt a new production model yourself anymore. So why are so many younger people just getting into the game so determined on emulating production models instead of finding new methods? I run into so many people in LA here at the same stage of their careers as mine who are constantly saying things like "yea, my last project didn't turn out so well because the DP wasn't that good". It makes me hit myself in the head every time... "DP IT YOURSELF THEN". If you don't have studio money to throw at an experienced DP, and you're unwilling to buy yourself a damn T2i and spend some time learning 3-point lighting, lensing, and basic framing... then, in my book, you just don't deserve a quality product. It's not the lack of a "good DP" that made the project bad. It's you not knowing what you're doing. But let's say the same person, just so happened to have a great DP that did his short as a favor or something else by chance... does that "director" really deserve to get anymore work after that? Shouldn't you really only be able to director others after you, yourself, have proven your capabilities and understanding of at least the basic crafts on a smaller indie level?

This just happened to me recently. I worked as a "DP" doing a few shorts for her and her friends... and by DP, I mean that I blocked every scene, lined up every shot, chose every angle, made sure continuity was maintained for the editor, made obvious production decisions like "hey, we should probably not shoot directly into this giant window for this scene", made sure we weren't breaking the 180 degree rule (which they didn't even know existed when directing their segments), ran sound, and did some basic set design. Now once it was all done, they screened the shorts at a few placed and some producers noticed "how professional they looked for such a small budget and crew"... the "directing" in a traditional sense, was pretty awful or non-existent (acting wise), but the producers wanted that "professional feel" for a few legitimate projects. The leader of their "group" stepped forward and took all the credit for "directing" and they gave him a more serious project now. I got a call the other day where he said "hey, I've got this bigger job now and I can't do it unless you "DP' for me." Which to me, is totally unacceptable. This was only this guys FIRST time directing anything and he only directed ONE of four segments. He doesn't even have any shorts or reel to back up his "directing", he just showed them some more of my stuff apparently and said "here's the "DP" I'm working with"... even when all my stuff clearly has me as the director on all of it. I tried to be nice at first, and told him that I'm only looking to work as a director in the future (because honestly, I've never even worked with a gaffing crew or done any REAL lighting setups... so I'd probably be a terrible DP in the real world) but he said he was already introduced to the producers as a director, and they don't want to change anything up now. So should I just tell this guy to "f** off or what"? The money would be good... but somethings are just more important.

I guess part of it is my fault in the beginning. I'm just not doing anymore "favor" shoots. And I'm also not taking anymore DP jobs just because I can. I don't want to get "production-cast" as a DP shooting other people's projects just because I've got "a camera" and gear. My gear and my work is for my projects alone from now on. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I'd rather work at Ralph's than shoot other peoples projects. I just don't like it. It's probably just my personality in the end. I'm just too controlling myself to take direction. If that means I'll kill my career and chances of working in "the industry" then so be it. :Drogar-KnockedOut(D
 
Last edited:
Yea, point taken. But Machete probably also had a very specific release date it needed to hit... and I'm sure the people funding the projects felt more comfortable using proven production methods than taking a gamble. But RR still had allot of involvement other directors seem to shy away from.. which is cool. He seems, from what I've seen and read, to always approach projects with the mentality of "how can we do this differently?" rather than... "well that's just how it's done".

So basically, what you're saying is that you've not enough experience on a real set that demands results and you're just sort of making this stuff up?

Which leads me to specify my original question even further... I should have said in the beginning, "why are beginning/aspiring filmmakers so obsessed with the industry methods?"

Oh. Wait. You're changing the context of this entire thread completely now.

Got it.

I'm not even sure why this thread exists, it's pretty much exactly what someone else said: the inexperienced rebelling against nothing.
 
So basically, what you're saying is that you've not enough experience on a real set that demands results and you're just sort of making this stuff up?



Oh. Wait. You're changing the context of this entire thread completely now.

Got it.

I'm not even sure why this thread exists, it's pretty much exactly what someone else said: the inexperienced rebelling against nothing.

I think you're picking and choosing your arguing points without reading what I've been saying. Being experienced in something doesn't automatically make you more valid that others. I'm "experienced" in English, but I'm terrible at spelling. Wall street is "experienced" in banking... but people seem to think they're doing a bad job. Presidents are "experienced" in politics, but can still run the country into the ground. Experience only signifies experience. Nothing else. You can be experianced in something, but still bad at it.

Also, if you're going to use the logic that being experienced in some industry or system validates your opinions to the point where you can condemn others' as automatically false, then you must also logically assume that the system used to gain that experience is 100% infallible. Which since it's in the end, it's based on the arts... and art is subjective, you can never fully make. Being experienced MAY lead you to more accurate conclusions... but they most certainly cannot be assumed to be 100% factual by any stretch. In 50 years, if everything is CG in a computer, or lighting no longer has to be done on set, I could very well have predicted the future right now. You never know. Filmmaking is an art, based on technology, which is always changing. What's been true for the last 60 year, might not work tomorrow. So then again, I ask, why the obsession with the status-quo?

Also, I may be inexperienced in the grad scheme of everything. But experience also doesn't denote talent or skill. My work has just been sought out by a few legitimate commercial producers, one being indirectly, through a "director" (like I mentioned) who is pretending like my work is his. Not to mention I may have a good chance at getting representation soon. So by just throwing around statements like, "it's pretty much exactly what someone else said: the inexperienced rebelling against nothing." is just being condescending for no reason. If you're personally angry or offended by anything in this thread, then it's probably just your own insecurities and/or problem. If everything I'm saying is stupid an non-nonsensical, then you have nothing to worry about and might as well ignore it. For example, if I said I was going to go shoot a movie with a ham sandwich... and that people who make movies with camera are doing it wrong... then it's not objectively possible, so there is no threat. But, here, deep down, something I'm saying must be striking a chord, or else you would just ignore it. Some of us happen to think the "system" could use improvement, and that it might be possible to make films in different ways with today's technology now. You don't, which is fine. Now let the rest of us debate the more philosophical aspects of filmmaking and production in peace.

You know something else I keep hearing from producers? "well you know... directing is the only entry level position left on set" So there you go... straight from the words of "real industry experienced producers".
 
Last edited:
hi gh2user,

how about you work on a feature....

12 hours a day (+travel) 6 days a week for 8 weeks (its a short shoot!!!!) leave home at 6 am... getting
back home at 8 pm... talk to the missus, go to bed, get up and repeat......day after day.

and when you get to set you are the director, dop, camera op and continuity....... and the whole crew ready to ask and ask
you questions about what needs to be done today.

how long do you think you would last before you had a nervous breakdown and they had to take you away.

that is the real world.......

i am just a gaffer and my limit is 8 weeks....after that i am ready to drop a c stand on anybody who comes near me...

and if you want to change the system get rid of "3 point lighting" and never use the phrase again.

cheers
ian
 
For example, if I said I was going to go shoot a movie with a ham sandwich... and that people who make movies with camera are doing it wrong... then it's not objectively possible, so there is no threat.

Without realizing it you are actually saying it, but with such strong conviction that it is possible to shoot with your proverbial ham sandwich that the thread keeps on growing and growing because people simply can't believe that anyone could actually think that!
 
Last edited:
Some of us happen to think the "system" could use improvement, and that it might be possible to make films in different ways with today's technology now.

How can you possibly know if the "new technology" offers a "better" way to make a film if you don't actually know how it's done now?

But, let's indulge this:

What specific new technology can make a particular aspect of filmmaking "better," and how specifically does it do this? (Example: in what ways is doing "all your lighting in post" better than doing it on set? Sure, it's new, it's different, but at the end of the day -- how is it "better"?)
 
You know something else I keep hearing from producers? "well you know... directing is the only entry level position left on set" So there you go... straight from the words of "real industry experienced producers".

A king or a politician or a fortuity may appoint a babbling moron to be a general. From this to conclude that generals are babbling morons in general is a classical "non sequitur". You can also call it nonsense.

And: Not having experienced how a professional director really works in a professional surrounding and why he/she does something or not does not automatically make you an expert in deciding who a professional director is and what his/her abilities or deficiencies may or may not be.
 
Robert Rodriguez

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Film Editing by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Carlos Gallardo .... unit production manager

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Production Management [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Mario Gonzales .... carpenter

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Art Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Robert Rodriguez .... sound editor
Gregory H. Watkins .... sound re-recording mixer

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Sound Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Carlos Gallardo .... special effects
Robert Rodriguez .... special effects

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Special Effects by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Mario Hernández .... stunt supervisor (as Mario Hernandez)
Manuel Salinas .... stunt supervisor

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Stunts [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Carlos Gallardo .... dolly grip
Roberto Martinez .... dolly grip
Robert Rodriguez .... camera operator
Robert Rodriguez .... still photographer

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Camera and Electrical Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Robert Rodriguez .... additional editor
Daniel Fort .... apprentice editor (uncredited)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Editorial Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Robert Rodriguez .... music editor

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Music Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Maria Gonzales .... assistant to producers
Roberto Martinez .... production assistant
Lic. Francisco Martínez .... production attorney (as Lic. Francisco Martinez)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Other crew [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
----------------------------

And then the 'Special Thanks' section... including for 'providing a bathtub'...

-----
Jose Aranda .... special thanks
Alfonso Arau .... special thanks: Provided the bathtub
Elizabeth Avellan .... special thanks (as Elizabeth Avellán)
Jorge Cadena .... special thanks
Humberto Cantu .... special thanks
Ben Davis .... special thanks
Carmen M. De Gallardo .... special thanks (as Carmen M. de Gallardo)
Samuel Flores .... special thanks
Ernesto Gallegos .... special thanks
Gudelio Garza .... special thanks
Jaime Garza .... special thanks
Ricardo Garza .... special thanks
George Hively .... special thanks
Thomas G. Jingles .... special thanks (as Thomas Jingles)
Jay Kamen .... special thanks
Keith Kritselis .... special thanks
Gary Krivacek .... special thanks
Josue Muñoz Quintero .... special thanks
Miguel Orihuela .... special thanks
Rafael Perales .... special thanks
Lic. Evaristo Perez Arreola .... special thanks
Enrique Perez .... special thanks
Hector Monroy Plascencia .... special thanks
Manuel Portillo .... special thanks
Jaime Rodriguez .... special thanks

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
-------

There is no question that given the block busters of 1992, given the less than block busters of 1992.. "El Mariachi" does not really compare... but it did catch the imagination of the distributor which picked it up and then spent a couple of million 'finishing' the film along with promoting it...

I do think people can produce better now for the no/low (I sold my blood for filmmaking money) budgets, but it does take effort...

To compare, here's the IMDB listing for "The Last Woman on Earth"(1960)

---------
Roger Corman .... producer
Charles Hannawalt .... associate producer (as Charles Hanawalt)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Produced by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Ronald Stein (as Ronald S. Stein)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Original Music by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Jacques R. Marquette (director of photography) (as Jack Marquette)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Cinematography by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Anthony Carras

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Film Editing by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Jack Bohrer .... production manager

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Production Management [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Jack Bohrer .... assistant director

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Second Unit Director or Assistant Director [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Stanley Watson .... property master

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Art Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Beach Dickerson .... sound recordist

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Sound Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Ronald Stein .... conductor (as Ronald S. Stein)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Music Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Kinta Zertuche .... location supervisor

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Other crew [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
---------

Pretty minimal in my book... and probably a forgetable film... but put 20 of those out a year... and in 50 years you'll get an honorary Academy award... or something like that...


Here's the credited crew for "Last Man on Earth"(1964), a 'spare no expense'... well for Corman, film...

------

Samuel Z. Arkoff .... executive producer
Harold E. Knox .... associate producer
Robert L. Lippert .... producer

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Produced by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Paul Sawtell
Bert Shefter

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Original Music by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Franco Delli Colli

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Cinematography by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Gene Ruggiero
Franca Silvi

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Film Editing by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Giorgio Giovannini

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Production Design by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Brunello Serena Ulloa

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Set Decoration by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Angiolina Menichelli (as Lilly Menichelli)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Costume Design by [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Piero Mecacci .... makeup artist

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Makeup Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Lionello Meucci .... assistant production manager
Vico Vaccaro .... production manager
Luciano Volpato .... production supervisor

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Production Management [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Carlo Grandone .... assistant director

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Second Unit Director or Assistant Director [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Enzo Silvestri .... sound engineer
Armando Timpani .... sound recordist
Bruno Zanoli .... boom operator

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Sound Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Alfonso Avincola .... still photographer (uncredited)
Angelo Lannutti .... assistant camera (uncredited)
Alvaro Lanzoni .... camera operator (uncredited)
Renato Pedrini .... chief electrician (uncredited)
Federico Tocci .... key grip (uncredited)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Camera and Electrical Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Carmen Frosali .... wardrobe mistress (uncredited)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Costume and Wardrobe Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Alfonso D'Artega .... orchestrator
Norman B. Schwartz .... music editor (as Norman Schwartz)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Music Department [/h][/TD]

[TD="colspan: 4"] [/TD]
Rita Agostini .... script supervisor (uncredited)
Franco Rispoli .... production secretary (uncredited)
Ermete Santini .... production secretary (uncredited)

[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][h=5] Other crew [/h][/TD]

----------

Not particularly a large crew... But then some old listings don't go as 'deep' as they do now...
 
I think you're picking and choosing your arguing points without reading what I've been saying. Being experienced in something doesn't automatically make you more valid that others. I'm "experienced" in English, but I'm terrible at spelling. Wall street is "experienced" in banking... but people seem to think they're doing a bad job. Presidents are "experienced" in politics, but can still run the country into the ground. Experience only signifies experience. Nothing else. You can be experianced in something, but still bad at it.

No, I'm reading what you're saying, and I'm translating it. Here's the translation, again: I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I'm assuming things are this way because I'm standing on the outside looking in.


Filmmaking is an art, based on technology, which is always changing. What's been true for the last 60 year, might not work tomorrow. So then again, I ask, why the obsession with the status-quo?

Filmmaking is art or hobby when commerce is not involved. If you plan on making and distributing for free, have at it.

Also, I may be inexperienced in the grad scheme of everything. But experience also doesn't denote talent or skill. My work has just been sought out by a few legitimate commercial producers, one being indirectly, through a "director" (like I mentioned) who is pretending like my work is his.

Well, fortunately for you that technically anyone who just calls themselves a producer is a producer, with or without worthwhile credits.

Not to mention I may have a good chance at getting representation soon. So by just throwing around statements like, "it's pretty much exactly what someone else said: the inexperienced rebelling against nothing." is just being condescending for no reason. If you're personally angry or offended by anything in this thread, then it's probably just your own insecurities and/or problem.

I am mad, bro. I can't believe I've been trying to build up to serious crews and talent, working at an efficient level, producing results when Robert Rodriguez does it all himself...

Oh, wait... no, no he doesn't. You were wrong, that's not an opinion, that's fact. You will be wrong until you actually start doing real work.

If everything I'm saying is stupid an non-nonsensical, then you have nothing to worry about and might as well ignore it. For example, if I said I was going to go shoot a movie with a ham sandwich... and that people who make movies with camera are doing it wrong... then it's not objectively possible, so there is no threat.

There is a threat, though, that you may actually infect someone more gullible than yourself with these ideas. That's a threat to the community, and that is the real reason why everyone's responding to you. A lot of us are naturally inclined to try and "protect" other filmmakers, even if it's not our job or duty.

But, here, deep down, something I'm saying must be striking a chord, or else you would just ignore it. Some of us happen to think the "system" could use improvement, and that it might be possible to make films in different ways with today's technology now. You don't, which is fine. Now let the rest of us debate the more philosophical aspects of filmmaking and production in peace.

A system that you're a part of on the subterranean level... a place where you can't possibly understand why, when, how, what. To use your statement earlier about experience: the banker that's been doing it 10 years might not be good at it, but at least he or she knows the business. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's been pointed out a few times now.

You know something else I keep hearing from producers? "well you know... directing is the only entry level position left on set" So there you go... straight from the words of "real industry experienced producers".

Laughable. And applicable... to no-budget no-name backyard business. Let me know when you see a major production hiring "entry level" directors i.e. in-experienced. I'll happily buy you dinner with money that I don't have.
 
well whadda ya know, learn somethin new everyday :)

what was the topic again? oh yea, Kholi invented electricity.

GH2user i might make a suggestion since so much fuel has been added to this fire already and the OT intermission has tripped that up a bit....

open up to the possibility that if you had a higher budget, you would get more expensive cameras, higher more crew, etc... just because new tech can subsidize a person or other equipment, doesn't meant that it's ideal to do so in every situation.

i use my 5d for some shoots, ex1 for another, af100 for another, different strokes baby!

the heated response you've seen is just because many of us don't like to see misinformation spread(case in point, me and ted's intermission) but if you just acknowledge that there ARE other possibilities or reasons for things, and that your opinion is in fact just one opinion and not an encyclopedia fact, then people will be more receptive. so use words like: possible, theory, perhaps, maybe, etc... words that convey that you're NOT trying to dictate that something is 'fact'

oh and of course try reeeeeeeally hard to word things as neutral as possible, forums have a way of making things sound derogatory.

sorry for any repeated information, but fresh outlooks sometimes need reiteration
 
Water seeks its own level. The industry, as it is now, is no mistake or matter of random happenstance.

Filmmaking is an art and it's an expensive art. The OP's true mistake is simply assuming all current working professionals do not think outside the box or evolve. They do.

The professional film-making machine, as it is today, is the additive sum of over 100 years of filmmaking trial and error, knowledge, experience, progression, and advancement. Every producer in the world who is worth a damn has entered the industry learning how things were done and has then turned around and thought of every way to fight tooth and nail to make everything faster, cheaper, and more efficient. These efforts, many times unconventional, have resulted in the system you know today. The OP has not truly experienced nor appreciates this system and thus is unqualified to press the proverbial 'reset button'. The enthusiasm to break the mold is commendable, and change drives progress, however the naivety and resulting stubbornness of the individual is his Achilles heel.

As true in any form of business or art, you must first know the rules before you can break them. As I have come to understand it, I find the OP lacks the understanding of how (and more importantly why) things work they way they do, to begin to take apart the machine and especially to tell others how to do it.

There is no right or wrong way to make a film because film is art. However, if discussing how to make a film with the creative control, freedom and resources as the modern motion picture industry demands, the suggestions made so far fail to be applicable to that level of film-making and simply result in massive compromises.

The French New Wave is a good example of something similar to what our OP is suggesting, despite cinematographers being rampantly influential and pivotal to the movement. There were many good films made that way, and many more that were not. The French New Wave filmmakers had their advantages and they certainly had their disadvantages. FNW was the original indie.
 
Last edited:
Don't insult the industry for existing, and don't use 'standards of production' as an excuse not to make your film. The barriers of production have been lifted, but the barriers to money have not.

Affordable large chip cameras are now available, and is another tool in the box, but without money you still won't have 18k's or technocranes like a 'real' production. If you want the creative freedom to do films your way, now is the time, just surround yourself with like minded people who will do it for the love of it, without financial consequence, but there should be no expectation of profit. If you want to make a little money on the next one, prove that you can deliver, pick a genre that can be pre-sold to cable, and put together a professional budget that is just enough to pay everyone a fair amount.

Starving artist, has always been the way of it, but filmmaking as an art was only available to the trust fund crowd. Now the basic tools are not significantly more than brushes and paint, get a job that has some flexibility, shoot a few weddings or small corporate jobs to pay off your gear. Make your film, not excuses. Show the finished production in your town, and the rewards can be the same as community theatre. No financial expectations, but everyone has a good time. You might move on to the next level, but most will not. But there is no reason for the Ed Wood's of the world to not pursue their dreams, and there is no reason for it to lead to financial ruin.
 
everyone who posts in this thread is obsessed with the industry.

Of course, because we are or want to be part of it. Art for art's sake is wonderful and noble, but art that makes you a LOT of money is way better. That happens outside the "industry" on occasion, but mostly happens within it because the industry has the money.
 
everyone who posts in this thread is obsessed with the industry.

It's not obsession, it's knowing the industry one wants to be a part of or is in. A surgeon learns everything he can about human anatomy in order to do his job correctly, it is his chosen area of expertise. A film-maker does the same thing about the industry they are going into.

You cannot become a part of it without knowing about it. Sure, there are those "outsiders" and "non-conformists" that brush up against the industry, but the chances of them actually doing anything with their work is pretty slim. And once they do have something, the "catch-22" is that they are then looked at by the rest of the "outsiders" as now being part of the "industry".

People rail against the "industry" but, as has been said before, it has been doing this for a long time now and it does produce. And the best way to learn how to break the rules is to become a part of it. Otherwise, without that experience and knowledge, someone saying they want to change the film-making landscape and do something out-of-the-box is implausible, because they do not even know what the box is in the first place.

To the OP: You have intrigued me with your premises, but until you have work you can show people, those premises are just theory. Show us what you are talking about through your film-making. That is the best way to get your point across to me, and probably a lot of the others. I would really like to see you put your theories into practice.
 
Last edited:
everyone who posts in this thread is obsessed with the industry.


It's a bit hard to read but what Walter Benjamin wrote in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" still stands: Film is not only the only art-from that combines pratically all other art forms into one and yet is a distinctive and completely new form ..... it is also the one art form that is possible only in a certain technical and industrial surrounding. So: Art and industry belong to each other in this case. So all of this is not a question of obsession but rather necessity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin
 
The French New Wave is a good example of something similar to what our OP is suggesting, despite cinematographers being rampantly influential and pivotal to the movement. There were many good films made that way, and many more that were not. The French New Wave filmmakers had their advantages and they certainly had their disadvantages. FNW was the original indie.

The French New Wave in turn was influenced by Hollywood... not the A/Big Budget Hollywood, but the B, and more specifically, the Noir genre, that was not given the same 'support' in Hollywood that the big buget films were given.

When I think of 'FNW' I tend to think of 'little stories', shot with 'small production units', and the like. Eventually even Hollywood crashed with the 'cast of thousands', like "Cleopatra"(1963), or the like... Which could be due to not only changing tastes, but the 'return influence' of FNW on the younger filmmakers.

In terms of 'learning the trade', luminaries such as Truffaut started his career as a 'critic'... and his actual making of films, may have been on the order of 'put your money where your mouth is'... (I don't know the actual decision point of course...), came later.

Jean-Pierre Melville was denied a 'assistence director' license, according to the wiki, and because of that decided to direct his own productions, with his own funds...

In either case, neither of these were 'in the industry', and then decided to exit, but were outside/excluded, and decided to 'make their own industry'.

While some types of 'revolutions' may come from with in, terms of the industry at large, of the 'direction' of a revolution often comes from the fringe...

I think there are some 'inspirational' aspects about how Hollywood productions 'work'... Michael Bay and an explosive ejaculation a minute... is not one... on the other hand trying to achieve a quality image, quality sound, on a minimal set of equipment, with a minimal staff, for stories that 'hollywood' has deemed, either explicitly, or implicitly, not financially worthy.. I'll go for it...
 
on the other hand trying to achieve a quality image, quality sound, on a minimal set of equipment, with a minimal staff, for stories that 'hollywood' has deemed, either explicitly, or implicitly, not financially worthy.. I'll go for it...

This is what we call "industry" over here... ;-)

30 to 50 members crew / between 20 to 40 days shooting / budget between 1 to 2 million € for TV, 2 to 5 millions for cinema is very much "industry" in our terms (few projects shoot for a higher budget). So my idea what "industry" is may be tainted by the fact that we already shoot in "indie'stan" from the Hollywood point of view....
 
Last edited:
It's a bit hard to read but what Walter Benjamin wrote in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" still stands: Film is not only the only art-from that combines pratically all other art forms into one and yet is a distinctive and completely new form ..... it is also the one art form that is possible only in a certain technical and industrial surrounding. So: Art and industry belong to each other in this case. So all of this is not a question of obsession but rather necessity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin

love that - i always refer to film as our highest art at dinner parties.
 
Back
Top