Pure Cinema film theory discussion...or something.

Jon Starr said:
Okay I don't think you're debating if it has a point or no point. The initial question should be "when is it pointless?" Jawa Argues if there's no narrative, then there's no point. Justin is arguing that films always have a point just by creation (even though he originally argued they don't... or something like that).
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm just making fun of the debate at this point. Debating the individual perception of art is a bit like debating the belief of God. It comes to a point where both parties must agree to disagree. Besides, the initial question wasn't "when is it pointless?" Its perceived pointlessness is something Jawa introduced with little backing. But, anyways, let's not start debating about the debate.

No I don't think no story= no point. It just has to be damn good and short.
Click to expand...
I don't know if its length is always an issue. If you mean in a conventional presentation, then yeah, probably. Otherwise I think that the audience's spatial relation to the filmic work may be of a more determining factor. You don't always have to sit down in front of a computer/television/theater screen, or create visual work intended for that sort of viewing.
 
vcassel said:
I don't know if its length is always an issue. If you mean in a conventional presentation, then yeah, probably. Otherwise I think that the audience's spatial relation to the filmic work may be of a more determining factor. You don't always have to sit down in front of a computer/television/theater screen, or create visual work intended for that sort of viewing.
Click to expand...

Not completely sure what you mean by the audience's spatial relation.... if you mean the space they're viewing the work, then I partially agree. Watching something online vs a theater are two different beasts.

However even in a theater it has to be short. I may be there for the long haul, but I've been bored by 'experimental' films longer than 2 minutes at times. If it has no story, IMO it shouldn't be longer than it can hold someone's attention. I've seen too many 10-20 minute pieces that shouldn't have continued past the 2-4 minute mark. I've seen films like Wavelength or Last Year at Marienbad... and they were just aweful and tiring and frustrating...
 
Jon Starr said:
Okay I don't think you're debating if it has a point or no point. The initial question should be "when is it pointless?" Jawa Argues if there's no narrative, then there's no point. Justin is arguing that films always have a point just by creation (even though he originally argued they don't... or something like that).
Click to expand...

That is what I am saying, though I don't think I was originally arguing that they don't. Reviewing the initial posts I think I was just asking why film unto itself had to have some premise beyond the visual conveyance of information. Why does there have to be a story, why does that story have to be based in a narrative format. The answers I guess are pretty simple, especially when in the context of making feature films or commercial films.

I bring it up mainly because these are just things on my mind lately now that I am working on my own projects. Until a point recently it had never really occurred to me to think outside the comfort zone of the standard formula of movie making.
 
vcassel said:
Yeah, and film for film's sake has a point, too. You're the only one pointing out a pointlessness. Do you see how absurd debating art over the internet can get? ;)
Click to expand...

Ha. I might argue that everything has a point. I don't think there is even a question of "where does it become pointless". I think with visual mediums the point, whatever it is, it right there on the face. Sure you can get more complicated with that presentation, and give it a greater point, but it will have a point no matter what. I think any way.
 
Jon Starr said:
Not completely sure what you mean by the audience's spatial relation.... if you mean the space they're viewing the work, then I partially agree. Watching something online vs a theater are two different beasts.

However even in a theater it has to be short. I may be there for the long haul, but I've been bored by 'experimental' films longer than 2 minutes at times. If it has no story, IMO it shouldn't be longer than it can hold someone's attention. I've seen too many 10-20 minute pieces that shouldn't have continued past the 2-4 minute mark. I've seen films like Wavelength or Last Year at Marienbad... and they were just aweful and tiring and frustrating...
Click to expand...

So for you, it has to be short and sweet? That's fine. I wouldn't say it's a rule though, obviously. I started this with a reference to Vertov's film because it's long by your standards, and to me it holds my attention for an hour quite well. Granted, I dig old silent movies, and I love building my own soundtracks to them to enhance the experience. In the case of "Man with a Movie Camera" my friends and I within the space a few minutes were pointing out how creepy it was that the films editing synced to our musical picks quite often, which led to conversations about hand cranked camera's and whether or not shooting at frame rates that matched typical western musical time signatures had anything to do with that....blah blah blah. Basically, even though it was "pointless" we gained insights by having our conventions challenged....or something like that.
 
JustinBrown said:
Ha. I might argue that everything has a point. I don't think there is even a question of "where does it become pointless". I think with visual mediums the point, whatever it is, it right there on the face. Sure you can get more complicated with that presentation, and give it a greater point, but it will have a point no matter what. I think any way.
Click to expand...

It's funny...before I even got into filmmaking, I was much more of a musician for many years. I never wrote a song with a theme or some kind of point other than to 'sound cool'. I think because music is such a more abstract art form than filmmaking, it's very difficult to summize a thought into song form and not have it sound forced or even melodramatic. My songs always came from some unknown and mysterious ether and always seemed to sort of write themselves.

I find filmmaking to be the opposite in many ways. For me, it's hard to think that I should even approach my camera without a concrete and well thought out idea first. Though, I'm not sure I feel that's such a good thing for me as an artist because of all the hoops one has to go through in order to 'say' anything visually. Ironically, even considering film to be a sort of reverse of the abstractness of music, I instinctively reject trying my hand at 'direct cinema' as a means of 'just doing some art.'
 
Hey JUstin, I'm curious to know if you like 'Moon in the Gutter' released in France I think as La lune dans le caniveau.

The critics I see now don't rate it well. I saw it about 30 years ago and it always stuck with me.
The B&W images and the beauty of Nastasia Kinski. The Lighting and shadows. I could never forget it. And I can't remember much of a story.
I think I saw it once again about 10 years later.Jeez. Now I'm going to have to find and watch it again.

Point is Justin I thought you might like that movie. Or Not.

//Edit: Sorry Brian. I had to look up the old Kinski movie now, so here's a clip someone posted on youtube. That's what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
vcassel said:
Nah, I'm just making fun of the debate at this point. Debating the individual perception of art is a bit like debating the belief of God. It comes to a point where both parties must agree to disagree. Besides, the initial question wasn't "when is it pointless?" Its perceived pointlessness is something Jawa introduced with little backing. But, anyways, let's not start debating about the debate.
Click to expand...
Justin's question was: "Why does something have to have a point?"
I'm saying, if anything lacks a point, it is by definition pointless.
That should be an obvious observation to anyone. A person who lacks teeth is toothless, a situation that lacks hope is hopeless and anything that lacks a point is pointless.

No?

As for narrative, I never said anything about a narrative structure. A story structure with a beginning, a middle and an end can be done with just images as well. But that doesn't mean having just random images of random length in a random order necessarely have a point or a structure. If it doesn't have a point, then it's pointless.

As for art, well I don't really considder film to be art anyway. It's a craft, more than anything, like music or carpentry. It's often mistaken for art though, because masters of the craft make it look easy. But even if David Lynch or Lars von Trier threw together a bunch of images at random, those guys are so skillfull their craft would work subconciously for them. If you gave Neil Peart two rocks and told him to bang them together, he couldn't not create music. But that's him. He's got the craft down.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Justin's question was: "Why does something have to have a point?"
I'm saying, if anything lacks a point, it is by definition pointless.
That should be an obvious observation to anyone. A person who lacks teeth is toothless, a situation that lacks hope is hopeless and anything that lacks a point is pointless.

No?
Click to expand...

Ah, you were just being superfluous. My apologies.

As for art, well I don't really considder film to be art anyway. It's a craft, more than anything, like music or carpentry. It's often mistaken for art though, because masters of the craft make it look easy. But even if David Lynch or Lars von Trier threw together a bunch of images at random, those guys are so skillfull their craft would work subconciously for them. If you gave Neil Peart two rocks and told him to bang them together, he couldn't not create music. But that's him. He's got the craft down.
Click to expand...

The profession of filmmaking is a craft, but the process becomes an art form as soon as elements are arranged deliberately with symbolic significance in a way that interplays with the senses, emotions, and intellect. David Lynch may indeed be a craftsman, but Mulholland Drive is art.

Of course that's not to say that all film is art, but I'm thinking that most of it probably is and usually that's by mistake.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Justin's question was: "Why does something have to have a point?"
I'm saying, if anything lacks a point, it is by definition pointless.
Click to expand...

That was one of them, I think I probably should have worded it in less general terms, like "Why does a film have to maintain a narrative structure?" or something a long those lines.

As for narrative, I never said anything about a narrative structure. A story structure with a beginning, a middle and an end can be done with just images as well. But that doesn't mean having just random images of random length in a random order necessarely have a point or a structure. If it doesn't have a point, then it's pointless.
Click to expand...

See, I am confused as to why you immediately associated this topic with random imagery in the first place.

As for art, well I don't really considder film to be art anyway. It's a craft, more than anything, like music or carpentry. It's often mistaken for art though, because masters of the craft make it look easy. But even if David Lynch or Lars von Trier threw together a bunch of images at random, those guys are so skillfull their craft would work subconciously for them. If you gave Neil Peart two rocks and told him to bang them together, he couldn't not create music. But that's him. He's got the craft down.
Click to expand...

I'm going with vcassel's answer to this one.
 
Gord.T said:
Hey JUstin, I'm curious to know if you like 'Moon in the Gutter' released in France I think as La lune dans le caniveau.

The critics I see now don't rate it well. I saw it about 30 years ago and it always stuck with me.
The B&W images and the beauty of Nastasia Kinski. The Lighting and shadows. I could never forget it. And I can't remember much of a story.
I think I saw it once again about 10 years later.Jeez. Now I'm going to have to find and watch it again.

Point is Justin I thought you might like that movie. Or Not.

//Edit: Sorry Brian. I had to look up the old Kinski movie now, so here's a clip someone posted on youtube. That's what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


It's in the queue now. Thanks for the heads up!
 
vcassel said:
It's funny...before I even got into filmmaking, I was much more of a musician for many years. I never wrote a song with a theme or some kind of point other than to 'sound cool'. I think because music is such a more abstract art form than filmmaking, it's very difficult to summize a thought into song form and not have it sound forced or even melodramatic. My songs always came from some unknown and mysterious ether and always seemed to sort of write themselves.

I find filmmaking to be the opposite in many ways. For me, it's hard to think that I should even approach my camera without a concrete and well thought out idea first. Though, I'm not sure I feel that's such a good thing for me as an artist because of all the hoops one has to go through in order to 'say' anything visually. Ironically, even considering film to be a sort of reverse of the abstractness of music, I instinctively reject trying my hand at 'direct cinema' as a means of 'just doing some art.'
Click to expand...


I would tend to agree, with the last line especially. While it is true that music can be spontaneous and moving, I would argue that film could be too. Referencing the GYBE clip I posted...the guy had obviously gone out of his way to find and assemble all sorts of clips, either shooting them himself or collecting them. That spontaneous creativity perhaps didn't exist when he shot them. It did manifest during the show though, through the use of 4 projectors and loops he was jamming along right with the band. This is only an assumption though, based on what I saw it appeared frequently that the band was unaware what images were coming up because they were some times caught of guard and would point out images to each other. At other times they just watched along with the audience.

Could that presentation be an hour long film by itself with out the music or the context of a live show? I very much doubt it. Maybe the problem is that cinema is a complicated animal these days, and it's hard to figure out where the art begins and the craft ends because on bigger films you have creative collaborations going on all over and there is no one person in control of the brush. Some might say the director is but then they are still subject to the input of others.

These days though, even though the impulse might be to not pursue what you call direct cinema, I think more an more people are experimenting with it. Just look at Bloom's films, and others of that type. There's nothing too groundbreaking going on except the fact that there are all these little stand alone non-narrative films that anyone with a simple idea can put together by themselves. I am waiting for some one to really push the envelope with those concepts and really see what they are capable of.
 
JustinBrown said:
It's in the queue now. Thanks for the heads up!
Click to expand...

Cool. I've been having a hard time finding it again but I think I have it or will soon have it.

You may like it, you may not. I've only seen it in B&W but I see it's in color. Thought you might like it. I think Harris might like it too. Not sure. Anyways, it's just a movie.

-Gord.

//Edit: I don't remember this scene (been awhile) from the movie but it (and the other shots) reminds me a lot of Mark Harris's style. To me. That's meant as a compliment.
I gotta watch this one again. It's been a while.

 
Last edited:
A film can be anything you damn well want it to be. That much is certain. However, audiences clearly prefer films with narrative content, so if you want people to actually see your films and want to make money with your craft, that's what you'll do. I think that preference goes way beyond cultural conditioning. Since man slayed the first lion we've had the need to tell our stories, and the need to hear them told. It's part of the glue that hold societies together. If you want to experiment and break with form and format, that's certainly anyone's right as an artist, so long as you recognize there may be no audience for what you do, and no profit. Then again you may create that new genius thing no one has ever seen before.
 
^ I'd agree with that.
And I'd also like to remind people that there is nothing wrong with being an artist even if it means living in poverty the rest of your life.
It might suck, but there's nothing wrong with it. Look at your history.
 
JustinBrown said:
That's an excellent question, and one I lack a distinct answer to. I think it's part of the reason I started this thread...maybe? How about you?
Click to expand...

Narrative is a story told by way of a sequence of events. The structure of that narrative is usually dependent on the format, but it isn't rigid by any means and its best use is often the focus of debate--check out the 'Screenwriting' section of DVXuser. Generally, for film, the three-act structure is considered king. It's not difficult for almost any work to fall into this structure, because what doesn't have some semblance of a beginning, middle, and end? However, some people, myself included, observe most films to follow more of a four-act structure.

Anyways, it's not so much a question of what your definition of narrative structure is. It's a container term with a more or less rigid meaning. It's more of a question of which one you prescribe to for the particular work at hand.
 
when two shots join, that time cinema born ,subject have a rhythm ,if u find out that rhythm ,then treat it same wave length with right perspective your work will be fantastic,cinema is a combination of creativity,craft and technology,if you are a good creative person but you don't have any craft to present, that is pointless,if your story can catch audience mind with in fraction of second then your film will be great,you are a great film maker,.............what you are going to tell,how you are going to tell,how the technology synch with your story...................this all part is very important in film making.
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top