Thomas Kinkade's tips on Filmmaking

[sean90291]

I agree with Barry. Kinkade can't be blamed for explaining how to emulate the look of his paintings. His name is on the movie. He's based his entire "artistic" career on a specific look.

The fact he's naive about filmmaking isn't relevant to me either. What's more naive is the producers themselves who thought basing a movie on a painting was enough to make the film worth watching. Sounds like they were missing some other key ingredients like a good story and direction. If they'd had those, they could have followed every one of Kinkade edicts to the letter and been just fine.

 

[Capt Quirk]

The fact he's naive about filmmaking isn't relevant to me either. What's more naive is the producers themselves who thought basing a movie on a painting was enough to make the film worth watching.

That is a whole other argument

 

[sean90291]

Well, it sounds like Vanity Fair is blaming Kinkade for the fact the movie sucks--the title of the article says as much. And there's the clear accusation that Kinkade was dictating ridiculous requirements to the crew. I say, who cares if he wanted to put up posters about Love on set. That has nothing to do with the fact the movie sucked. I don't like his art. I'm definitely not his target audience. And I'd never watch the film. But I think the writer of the VF article is more naive than Kinkade.

However...if it turns out that Kinkade had script approval and made ridiculous (and naive) demands on the story and direction...well then blame the guy for the total pile of garbage. That's a different matter entirely, and I think it would be far more informative to learn those kinds of details, since we all can benefit from seeing where films truly go wrong. (Again, his list of aesthetic edicts doesn't matter to the outcome of the film at all.)

 

[Jim Brennan]

I can't imagine he had anything other than a HUGE influence. Lots of people have had movies made about them while they were still alive (apparently, its a biopic), but most have neither the money, nor the influence to affect a major motion picture. I would speculate that he was treated with kid gloves and whatever he wanted done was done. Otherwise a couple of million house fraus wouldn't watch the movie, because he would take his name off it.

 

[sean90291]

You're probably right.

And I didn't know it was a biopic! How post-modern (shooting a biopic in the style of your own paintings).

 

[Jim Brennan]

Even more ironic is that the story came out in Vanity Fair.

 

[Nathyn]

The source of my criticism has nothing to do with him being a Christian, but at his ineptitude (is that a word?), and that's the tone I get from the article.

I wasn't aiming my insane ranting at you Jim but Cullum (the writer). And no one ever even said Kinkade was Christian but his art seems to be bought by such. I get the impression from Cullum's tone (which is mocking of the people who buy his art based on his idea of who he thinks they may be) that anything that doesn't fit into his view of what's good there must be something wrong with it particularly if conservative leaning people are buying it.

And four billion dollars worth of ineptitude is the kind of ineptitude I could use right now because I got bills. No Red camera for may anytime soon. (Not that I'm really seeking one but...) And while making a lot of money doesn't particularly mean something is good it obviously seems to be good to someone.

As you previously stated, the movie is his, and why shouldn't he dictate what he wants to see? He may have done it poorly, or even been a jerk... but that has never happened in Hollywood before, has it?

Exactly. And I do this all the time. Since I DP my own projects I don't have to make 16 point list but my since when is it odd that people chose their own looks. Give the list to the DP show him a bunch of the paintings and say this is what I want. Pay the DP and he's got nothing to say.

-Nate

 

[Sad Max]

Wow another slam on a piece of art/film because it's fan base is conservative/Christian.

I don't think so. Aside from the fact that the movie is a Christmas movie, there's no mention of Christians or Christianity in the text of the article, other than noting that his work is popular with evangelicals, and the Jack Chick comment. You're looking for an excuse to be offended, where there's nothing to hang your offended-ness on.

Hm. So let me get this straight. This guy is so bad because he makes art for the masses and wants his movie to resemble his art.

Of course the judgment that his work is uninspired low-end crap is a subjective one. People offer subjective judgments of artists' work all the time, although it's worth noting that in a tradition of Christian art (assuming that Kinkaid is legitimately part of such a tradition) where you have people like Michaelangelo and DaVinci and Titian and Rembrandt to pick from, it's tough to see how Kinkaid even merits mention.

The main jest of this article is how dare this person make films.

The main thrust of the article impressed me as cinematography should be left to cinematographers. Although frankly the article isn't much better as a piece of writing, than Kinkaid's paintings are as artwork (actually, to be fair, it's worse). In fact most of Kinkaid's notes - excepting #s 6, 10, and 16, which impress me as kind of silly, and technically illiterate - aren't notably different from what I frequently see come out of tone meetings.

Too many conservatives/Christians/religious people like him. Not to mention they're not edgy enough. Not enough drugs, sex or violence with their Christmas theme. How dare he even make a Christmas themed film.

Please point me to the text in the article, saying (or implying) that. I missed it.

The article is bias BS (I understand it's an opinion piece so that means the OP is full of BS).

Or possibly the writer simply does not hold your same point of view. That's frequently an alternative, to someone with whom you disagree being 'full of BS.'

Frankly I don't even like this kind of art but I do indeed have a black @$$ Paul Cullum and those like him can pucker up to.

It's unclear to me how the blackness of anyone's @$$ is relevant to the content of the article or the qualities of Kinkaid's paintings.

The line can start here. Since when did it become so wrong to have a fan based not rooted in depravity?

Since when did anything outside of Kinkaid's brand of art become 'depravity?' Is it possible that you divide the creative world into 'Christian Themed' and 'Depraved?'

This is a telling comment on your part: if it's not normative Christian Americana, it must be depraved. Talk about intolerant...

Are any hint of traditional values simply wrong now?

Something else that I couldn't find anywhere in the text of the article. Did I miss it, or are you just setting up strawmen, for fun...?

Think I may just drop Mr. Cullum a little note on his Facebook page and let him know I'm thinking about him.

That will probably make his day. Someone actually read my OP and cared enough to comment on Facebook, about it!

 

[Nathyn]

I don't think so. Aside from the fact that the movie is a Christmas movie, there's no mention of Christians or Christianity in the text of the article, other than noting that his work is popular with evangelicals, and the Jack Chick comment. You're looking for an excuse to be offended, where there's nothing to hang your offended-ness on.

Not at all. As a matter of fact I've been a victim of people being "offended" without real reason myself. But I worked for a junior newpaper in high school did take journalism in college as well as marketing and advertising psychology and I know very well how to read between the lines. Everything has a set up and knock down and is either trying to sale you something or lead you somewhere.

Of course the judgment that his work is uninspired low-end crap is a subjective one. People offer subjective judgments of artists' work all the time, although it's worth noting that in a tradition of Christian art (assuming that Kinkaid is legitimately part of such a tradition) where you have people like Michaelangelo and DaVinci and Titian and Rembrandt to pick from, it's tough to see how Kinkaid even merits mention.

Good point so why is he being mentioned? Why is a cheesy artist with a cheesy DTV movie being mentioned in VF?

The main thrust of the article impressed me as cinematography should be left to cinematographers. Although frankly the article isn't much better as a piece of writing, than Kinkaid's paintings are as artwork (actually, to be fair, it's worse). In fact most of Kinkaid's notes - excepting #s 6, 10, and 16, which impress me as kind of silly, and technically illiterate - aren't notably different from what I frequently see come out of tone meetings.

I agree with you which makes me question why the writer feels it's such a big deal.

Please point me to the text in the article, saying (or implying) that. I missed it.

I'm glad you asked. The line calling him "a postmodern Norman Rockwell for the evangelist set" is meant as a set up to get a certain group of people with certain ideas on the side of the writer. Next, the OP defines Kinkade's style: "The art world has never exactly embraced Kinkade, though in the last 16 years his company and its partners have reportedly made more than $4 billion selling his signature renderings of idyllic settings, which employ diffuse light sources, aggressive pastels, and a domineering religious worldview.

So we get the idea that Kinkade is an artist making art to be sold to a conservative Christian (which is what's meant by domineering religious worldview) mass.

Then we get: “Putting Thomas Kinkade in an art-historical context is like trying to put Jack Chick in the context of the illustrated comic strip,” says Peter Frank, associate editor of The Magazine Los Angeles and senior curator at the Riverside Art Museum. “In the age of Photoshop, anybody can do this kind of crap.”

Okay, so again the Jack Chick reference. If you don't know who Jack Chick is he's the guy who pioneered Christian comics and comic based tracts. His company produces Christian tacts done as comics and also produces Christian comic books. So the idea is Jack Chick wasn't special to illustrated comic strips and neither is this person to art.

Let me question in this article why did the name "Jack Chick" come up? Jack Chick = Christian worldview/Conservative. This doesn't even really make sense when the Chick tract is the most known form of tract worldwide. So indeed the C. Tract does have historical value in the annals of illustrated comic strip. Anyone own or even seen the Pope Paul John comic put out by Nelson and Marvel Comics? But I bet a few people here have seen a Chick Tract. And by the way the term "illustrated comic strip" is surely the sign of a person trying to be more intelligent than they are and ending up Epic Fail, aren't all comic strips illustrated or were there some with just word balloons?

Again we get “I’ve never seen any of his paintings, but I have to say, he’s very cheesy in his descriptions,” Kuras says. “The whole gauzy, cozy feeling, darkening the edges to make your vision more myopic, I think is about trying to draw the larger metaphor for the way to heaven. But reading all of this, it’s a prescription for a bad ’60s porn movie.”

Really? The idea here is to make fun of the very idea of what he's trying accomplish. Yes Walker Texas Ranger was cheesy but how many of the people in this very forum watched a few eps laughed and cheered. We knew it was cheesy but it was fun. This is simply a slam on him for what he's trying to do. Not only that but this person goes further to compare his conservative style to that of a porn film (the very opposite).

Then we learn about his lawsuits and questionable behavior. Meant to question his "morals" but again to my knowledge I still don't know if the guy is Christian, Jewish, etc and it's not in the article, but we know his fanbase is. The idea is to show hypocrisy even if it's slight.

Or possibly the writer simply does not hold your same point of view. That's frequently an alternative, to someone with whom you disagree being 'full of BS.'

Well yes and he would probably think a lot of things I opin on is BS too. That's allowed.

It's unclear to me how the blackness of anyone's @$$ is relevant to the content of the article or the qualities of Kinkaid's paintings.

LOL! Cut it out. :laugh:

Since when did anything outside of Kinkaid's brand of art become 'depravity?' Is it possible that you divide the creative world into 'Christian Themed' and 'Depraved?'

Actually it's not. The tone of the article seems to be a slam on the warm, fuzzy traditional values he's trying to bring out. It's not just a slam on him but on what he wants to accomplish.

This is a telling comment on your part: if it's not normative Christian Americana, it must be depraved. Talk about intolerant...

Hm. Really? You need to go here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=152130

Something else that I couldn't find anywhere in the text of the article. Did I miss it, or are you just setting up strawmen, for fun...?.

Oh, by all means no. I was taught very well how to read between lines. This article is by the book. Remember, I write my own press releases and do this all the time. It's steps:

1. Get you're audience. He did that in the set by mention who Kinkade was and who his audience is.

2. Tell what he's trying to do and why he's bad at it.

3. Grab opinions of people considered "authorities" but with your same views, hence the quotes. Again the Jack Chick quote was most telling.

That will probably make his day. Someone actually read my OP and cared enough to comment on Facebook, about it!

How it does, but I was unsure which person he was. But I may put some effort into it and push the issue now that you bought it up. Well, that my take. Anymore questions, feel free to post em. I take quarters dimes and nickles too. :beer:

-Nate