What is most important to the process of making a movie?

I agree with Hudson. Before I thought it was the imagery, then maybe the theme, lately I've been pitting story against performance, but for the past while, performance has been winning in my book. I think it's fair to pick one thing only if you accept that throughout life your opinion may and probably will change. So for now, it's performance in my book. There have been so-so stories that have been not only saved but made great by good acting. Everyone's gonna deliver in a different way.

Also, before I became interested in making movies, and was just interested in watching them, as an infant, I honestly used to think the actors would get together and make the movies. They were 'in charge' I didn't know there was such a thing as a director (I was about 7). Also, when I hear people talk, they rarely say 'did you see fincher's new one?'. They say, 'did you see the new brad pitt movie?' etc.

It is perfectly reasonable to pick one, given that you accept your mind will change. That way you can test all the variables. True experimental filmmaking, very rigid process where one variable is tested, the others kept constant.
 
I don't care what you all say.

Take away the coffee, then try and make a movie.

Will.
Not.
Happen.
 
greymog said:
True experimental filmmaking, very rigid process where one variable is tested, the others kept constant.
Click to expand...
Interesting- not so much "experimental filmmaking" as a filmmaking experiment, though I don't know that performance could be a constant ("OK- give me eight good takes, now give me a mediocre one").

And yes, the one constant constant- coffee (and a recording media, of course).
 
Yeah I dunno if that made sense, but I think it's a perfectly valid question by Kholi. We all try and find out. But you can put these to the test I guess. Right now, performance is what I spend the most effort on. I'm not saying overexpose or not pay attention to the other stuff, but one variable, is usually stressed.

This has been a rough week I really dunno if I'm making sense but I think you got the jist... yeah more a filmmaking experiment. Which is essentially the step to take in answering this question. I mean I can take everyone's word for it that it's gotta be all of em, but ain't no easy way. The best way out is through.

I mean, best and most boring answer to any argument is 'a little bit of both'. Something I always say. Try it. Best, and most boring answer. Who wants a boring answer? We make movies for eff's sake ;)

Cheers guys.

I'm gonna have .... coffee.
 
Doc Bernard said:
I personally think first and foremost, one needs to realize the ultimate reason for the making of a film. That is the most important, as it is hard work and takes sacrifice to create something. That is what sets the tone for the rest of the process. Once that is realized, all subsequent decisions are made with that in mind.
Click to expand...

I second this. but will add from the little experience I have and just from observing others, is to have courage and charisma to see your project through.
 
It's a toss-up between the script and the acting. One might be more important the other here or there, but it goes back and forth depending on the content and budget.

Obviously, the acting is going to be most important on an extremely low-budget film, where the difference between a good cast and a bad cast will be huge.

But on more moderate to high budget films, where a competent cast is likely assured, the script becomes the key ingredient that most films lack.

I think of it as similar to a song. You can't listen to a song without a performer, and a performer can't perform a song that isn't written.

Every film needs a story to be told (the script) and somebody to tell it (the cast).
 
pirate40 said:
script.


Oh, and Coffee.
Click to expand...

5239339178_6e05871fa0_o.gif
 
It's impossible to answer that question with one word or sentence, because it depends on several variables that are interdependent. I would say the most important is concept. For example, several people said that the actor is the most important - well, YES BUT. Yes, but only if the concept is right. So if you have a movie that has a script that's structured in such a way as not to be actively destructive, then great acting (with proper casting!) will work. And that's how you get scripts where nothing much happens, i.e. it's nothing to write home about, but the actors get a lot of room to do good work; now imagine that the script is actually BAD in a certain way (like clearly reaching for something that it's spectacularly failing at) - then even the very same great actors will NOT make it work, because at that point the script is actually actively destructive. So again, the concept has to be correct - "a script that's not actively destructive, with great acting"... and the movie works! Now take an actioner. This is again all about concept - this time, unlike in the previous example, the script must be good, and it will tolerate mediocre acting; when there's pulse quickening action people tend to pay less attention to the shakespearian level acting (kung fu movies anyone?). In this case what is the most element is reversed - it's the script, not the actors. Sometimes it's not really much about either - it's about style. Example: Stranger Than Paradise. The acting is all-rightish, but hardly brilliant. The script is decent, but hardly brilliant. What makes it work is a great stylistic idea. There are a number of such films, often they capture something about the sensibility of a given generation. So in that case the concept is: let's make a movie with such a hugely prominent style, that it becomes the substance, and make the movie work that way. That's an example of a concept that doesn't depend as much on either script or acting as much as hugely on style and idea, capturing a spirit, a mood, a sensibility. Another example of that are some of the early John Waters movies, such as Pink Flamingos. The acting is laughable. The technique is dreadful, the script is a big excuse - but it's pure rebellion captured on celluloid, and it appeals to the freak in us and the gawker. So what did John Waters have? A concept. The concept was: forget hollywood screenplay structure, dialogue and such. Forget technique of the cinematic arts. Forget professional actors. Focus on exploring a psychology that has been up till then ignored: the gay underground in your face rebellion against society... and it's a winner.

So as you can see, there never is just ONE thing that's key, as much as there is a concept. Get your concept right, and the elements will align themselves, and your movie will work depending on the concept - it may be acting in one, script in another, sensibility/style in the third, and so forth.

And there you have it.
 
Passion. It's the only thing that can elevate a film from the sum of its parts to a brand new integer.
 
Last edited:
I'm re-thinking my original post a bit, and right now I think the most important part of the process is having a story worth telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top