The heck with camera gear - "Escape from Tomorrow" Sundance sensation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gary Huff said:
Which "film artists" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Stanley Kubrick, Danny Boyle, Martin Scorsese, Orson Welles, Quentin Tarantino, the Coens, Francis Ford Coppola, Charlie Chaplin, Tim Burton, Robert Altman, Woody Allen, Terrance Malick, Preston Sturges, DW Griffith, Sergei Eisenstein, John Cassavetes, Spike Lee, Steven Soderburgh, Akira Kurosawa - an incomplete list, do I need to go on?

Film was/is a personal expression for all of these artists.
 
nothing said:
Film was/is a personal expression for all of these artists.
Click to expand...

All of which worked in a studio system off of scripts written by someone else, with a budget, a paid crew, and producers who could give them leeway or make demands on the content of the product. All of which depended on a product to be consumed by the masses in order to keep them from losing their house.

Art is a happenstance byproduct of film, not the other way around.

To wit, is The Magnificent Ambersons the person expression of Orson Welles?
 
Continue making corporate videos Gary, the film world will never miss your contributions.

Doesn't arguing for arguing sake gets old? I don't even think you believe half of what you say here - I think there's a word for that under a bridge somewhere.
 
Kubrick for one. He had final edit on his projects. He wrote or co-wrote many of the scripts. He told the story EXACTLY how he wanted to, not the way the studio wanted for commercial purposes. You shouldn't paint everyone with the same broad brush.
 
Chris Adler said:
Kubrick for one. He had final edit on his projects. He wrote or co-wrote many of the scripts. He told the story EXACTLY how he wanted to, not the way the studio wanted for commercial purposes. You shouldn't paint everyone with the same broad brush.
Click to expand...

You are correct. That was quite a list there, and I don't feel like breaking down each one. But did Kubrick ever think of himself as "making art"? It was a business, people got paid, he had budgets to adhere to and crew members that got paid well for their time. That's a huge difference.

Plus, Kubrick's "art" was in the look of his films, because he was very much involved with the craft of cinematography. That was his interest. His stories tended to take a back burner to that.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
Not meant to be an insult, a very real explanation of why you do what you do for a living and don't make "films".
Click to expand...

Because just anyone can get into the film business, huh? It's that easy, and thus if I'm not it's because I have something wrong with me? That I'm not creative or intelligent enough to be a grip?
 
Chris Santucci said:
The biggest thing for me (as mentioned):

"While Disney has yet to respond to the movie's existence, any distributor willing to tackle this one will need a very tricky legal strategy."

I suppose having a "cult" hit has some value for sure, and in the end, it'll be the story telling and the buzz that will get this guy any access. These days, having some kind of hook is almost a necessity for getting the attention of major festival programmers, so good on him for finding one because he's getting all kinds of attention now.

The obvious advantage of B&W that stuck out to me was white balance, and since he was shooting the way he was (with little if any control), I'd say that was a smart choice up to the point where B&W may not be interesting enough to audiences who watch color films.
Click to expand...

I was reading through this thread to see if anyone mentioned this.

Most filmmakers today completely side step the fact that black and white, when using lower budget equipment, provides a much better final image than does its color counterparts. Even with something as lowly as a point and shoot HD cam, black and white can look pretty stellar because the camera isn't having to "create" the colors for the image.
 
Chris Adler said:
Gary, you're trying to characterize the experience of making a film as either art or business. Film can be both.
Click to expand...

Film is primarily a business. You can gussy up the language all you want, but film is rarely the personal expression of one man. It can happen, yes, so please don't clutter up the discussion with every exception you can think of.

"Art" (obviously being in the eye of the beholder) is the byproduct of this group effort. When everyone is one the same page and on their game, something magical can happen. But you remove a single element from that, and elements begin to suffer. And having everyone on top of their game and all on the same page is not something you exactly have control over.
 
nothing said:
Actually, Gary is trying to troll. That's what he does.
Click to expand...

Says the man who decided to personally insult me instead of answering whether or not The Magnificent Ambersons was the personal expression of Orson Welles, or countering any point with anything other than mere assertion.

I'm the troll...riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
Gary Huff said:
All of which worked in a studio system off of scripts written by someone else, with a budget, a paid crew, and producers who could give them leeway or make demands on the content of the product. All of which depended on a product to be consumed by the masses in order to keep them from losing their house.

Art is a happenstance byproduct of film, not the other way around.

To wit, is The Magnificent Ambersons the person expression of Orson Welles?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this if you're wanting to work within the studio system. If you're just going to make Clerks or Following seventeen times over in your career, or Video Game Highschool, or The Guild, then you probably don't have to concern yourself too much with...well, anything. Just do your thing.

But if you ever want investors and capitol supporting your film, you absolutely will not be walking away with "your artistic vision". You will be producing a "collective vision", much of which is dictated by whomever is writing the checks.
 
Gary Huff said:
Says the man who decided to personally insult me instead of answering whether or not The Magnificent Ambersons was the personal expression of Orson Welles, or countering any point with anything other than mere assertion.

I'm the troll...riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...


Do you not make corporate video for a living? You hate your career so much that pointing it out is an insult to you? As explained, that was not meant as an insult, merely pointing out that there are many ways to make a living with moving images - some of them very much art, but many others requiring very little artistic sensibility.


So because I believe Orson Welles is an artist means that I believe he had complete control of every single one of his projects and that they all succeeded? That doesn't follow - your logic is flawed. Citizen Kane was definitely a personal artistic expression of Orson Welles - how is Magnificent Ambersons relevant?
 
Last edited:
Okay, so my takeaway from this discussion is most film is created for little purpose other than to generate revenue. Some films are created to be an artistic expression while still providing a viable means for earning revenue. Even fewer films are created for purely ARTISTIC reasons and not for business, as they are a guaranteed loss both financially and critically.

I can agree with that. I don't think we learned anything new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top