“Another thought is that editing is strictly and solely unique to film and is what separates it from other art forms”
I’m always in conflict when I think about film editing. After reading Tarkovsky’s book I have fallen in love with his views on film editing. He thinks of using editing to create a narrative as the farthest thing from true cinematic art. That the aspect that is truly unique to film and only film is the ability to capture and imprint time. Using this ability to show observations of life and slow subtle changes through time. I think there is a large amount of untapped storytelling potential in this approach since the majority of films today rely too heavy on editing. But again, I’m always conflicted with this. Are Tarkovsky’s views too polarized? Because there are a hell of a lot of films that rely on editing that I enjoy very much.
@MICHAEL about trying to enjoy every film you see.
I agree with you about this, but sometimes I find it so hard to find anything I like in a movie like Transformers, The Blind Side, Fantastic Four etc. For me there are bad film and good films. The bad films are truly appalling and it’s okay to not like them, for they truly don’t add anything to cinema as an art form. But then I believe that once you reach a certain tier of filmmaking it’s all subjective. You either like or dislike a film or filmmaker, but that doesn’t mean that film or filmmaker is bad. Of course this view requires that one know a little about the history of cinema and it’s various avenues of technique and expression.
Like the Ozu example you gave. I particularly love Ozu’s films but can totally understand why you wouldn’t enjoy them.
An example for me was when I watched that Tarsem film The Fall. I don’t know why, but I didn’t enjoy it. The group of friends I was with loved it. I could see why they loved it, for it was a beautiful film and in no way bad filmmaking. I just couldn’t get into it and was rather frustrated that I didn’t feel the same magic my friends did.
Kyle – who is to say which films qualify for the special privilege of being respected even when they aren’t enjoyed? I agree that it is “okay” not to like the “bad” films – just that this should not be your goal. Ideally, I would be able to love a Ron Howard movie just as much as a Kubrick movie.
I said film is images on a timeline. I never said anything about sound. Sound is just another spice you can add to the main course if you feel like it. Hell, I didn’t even state the images had to move!
—PolarisDiB
Right. My point was precisely that you didn’t mention sound. Doesn’t a definition of film require the mention of sound?
No
Nope.
Like you said: no rules!
—DiB
It’s about how you show/reveal/tell it. What is shown is secondary. Form first.
This is not a complete philosophy on films of mine but an aspect of it. I believe that film making in general needs to make films that create different emotional reactions in the viewer. There should be films that entertain, films that educate, films that create sadness, films that shock and horrify, films that disturb, and others for any other emotional reaction. I also believe as a viewer that I need to see these different types of films as well to avoid staying within my comfort zone.
Film is what you get out of it. There’s no use blithering about high-minded artforms or the synergy between actor and camera bla bla bla because you can take anything out of a film. Sure we have our Orson Welles and Stanley Kubricks and all of that, but on the other hand we have people like Spielberg and Michael Bay who put out what most of us would call garbage that still manages to do its job: entertain and be interesting.
Polaris: Right. So your definition was of film at its most basic, simplified level. Got it. But now what’s the philosophy this supports? :)
That there are no rules.
I keep my statements simple and basic specifically because there is a tendency in philosophies on film to use words like “should”, “bad” or “good”, “compel”, etc. I cannot avoid “is” but if I am going to use it, I better encompass every film I have ever seen in that statement of being. I simultaneously see the philosophy of “film is images on a timeline” as an opportunity for people to explore every possible variant of images on a timeline of any length they desire, but also as somewhat of a negative reaction to the idea that film is necessarily important, artistic, entertaining, productive, useful, desireable, helpful, enlightening, distracting, disturbing, or really much of anything beyond what you make it, both the “you’s” that are producers, and the “you’s” that are consumers.
Each added word inviting more opportunities, yes, for further words, little subdivisions of the broader and more concise idea that “film is images on a timeline”. Each word I add provides an opportunity for another thread. The original question is, “What is your philosophy on film?” That’s it. That it’s images on a timeline. That is my philosophy on film.
—PolarisDiB
Right. Film is moving images. Or film is one medium within the moving image paradigm. Mold and sculpt it how you will.
I like that one better!
“Film is one medium within the moving image paradigm”.
Though that still dictates “moving” image, making some documentaries and La Jetee a little questionable. Ergo, “Film is one medium within the image over time paradigm.”
The only problem I can see with that statement whatsoever is that my high school history teacher hated the word “paradigm”. But that’s her problem.
—PolarisDiB
Hmm – well if it’s moving across a timeline it’s moving – even if it’s a still image.
How about?
‘Film is one medium within the moving image apparatus’
Tell your high school teacher that I agree that apparatus is better than paradigm. :)
I think that in order to be original, a piece of art needs to surprise you. Each new piece of art should add something to the world of ideas that hadn’t been thought of before. Since film is an audio-visual medium, it should let you see and hear things that are completely unknown to you.
Thank you, Moss.
I am going to put that sentence on my profile. Apparatus also signifies the technical being of film.
—PolarisDiB
Film is part of a continuum of activities that come from the fact that a human being can associate ideas and work with its hands to modify something. It hasn’t to have purpose to justify it’s existence because it just happens. Happens naturally or what is the same it exists because it can exist . So to me there are just superficial differences between Godard and let’s say the people that made the clothes I wear…
And everything that Polarisdib and Moss said.
Very nice.
I think i like continuum even better
‘moving image apparatus’
vs.
moving image continuum’
???
Film should be used to enlighten, not to distract.
Michael – I know what you mean and agree with you. Ideally, I wish to love a Ron Howard film as much as I love a Kubrick film. I just find it hard sometimes to do that. That’s why I came up with that lazy rationale of judging films. It’s a constant conflict for me.
Brady, really? I don’t think so. Just like other arts out there which can be either entertaining of philosophical and full of intense meaning, so can film, and so SHOULD film. I see no reason to take away escapist films for those that actually want and care to see them, like myself, and like many, many others out there. Sure, I watch a lot of other stuff, too, but I don’t see any problem with a nice genre picture every now and again (or more often than that), you know?
Certainly I think there should be more enlightening films, of course, but I think taking away what many people desire just because it’s a distraction from his or her everyday, perhaps incredibly dull or depressing, lives is rather harsh.
Savvy
Right, I should probably rephrase; I think that distracting film can be used to enlighten as well. It think that every movie (or film, if the distinction matters) should have something that you can take away from it, whether it is beauty, a message or a common truth. People should be more willing to look underneath a movie and find something new, not just have an hour or so taken from their lives. There’s no reason why a film like Synecdoche, New York shouldn’t be considered entertainment.
Brady, okay, and that’s fine. I mean, I think I agree with that, because when I see a film that is NOTHING, then I feel kind of empty inside (something that seems like it should have something to say, Benjamin Button, is a nothing film). I mean, even if you’re not finding a greater meaning from a film, though, I think that, if a film leaves you with a certain feeling about life at all, then you’ve witnessed something, you know? Unlike Transformers 2, which also made me feel nothing.
Savvy
Michael nailed it. Those are my thoughts exactly.
Thank you, Matt.
@Zachary Philip Brailsford: Did you come up with that term on your own? I also call the sentimental bullshit Oscar-bait films “nothing movies.” I don’t use it to refer to “entertainment” films like Transformers (although I haven’t seen Transformers) but to the ones that take themselves more seriously and are usually based around a “message.” I have no bias against films with messages but I find that when you build your movie around a single point (“racism is bad,” “abortion is bad,” “war is bad”), you tend to add nothing else and then wind up with a really shallow film that people either like or dislike based on whether they agree politically with the message of the film. Ben Button, The Reader, Gran Torino, The Blind Side, The Kite Runner, A Beautiful Mind are examples of what I call nothing movies, and they are the least appealing type of film to me.
Another point that I left out of my first post is that I support being different for the sake of being different. I’ve seen enough movies that I’ve more or less seen it all. I have absolutely no interest in formula (with a few notable exceptions in whose appeal lies precisely in their predictability: CSI: Miami, James Bond movies, The OC, Humphrey Bogart film noires) so I support anything or anyone that tries to be different. A failed art film has far more value than a “nothing movie,” failed or not.
Like Jim Jarmusch, I do not believe in totally unique ideas. Every idea derives from previous experiences. Therefore, I think that originality lies not in how you avoid copying your influences, but rather how you blend your influences together. A film inspired equally by Guy Maddin films, Frank Miller graphic novels and Italian opera music is almost sure to be original. Tarantino does this particularly well.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will always be considered a thief by some. I recently made a short film that used intertitles in the same way Maddin did in My Winnipeg. I was told that this idea was unoriginal because it came from another movie. My retort is that the mere fact that we can name THE movie where it came from proves that it is relatively original. Where did the basic techniques and tropes of Hide and Seek come from? Can’t think of a specific movie? Because they come from a thousand different movies. How’s that for unoriginal?
So to sum this up, if you made all of your characters wear top hats for no reason other than to set them apart from other characters in other movies then I would support this move, or at least the intent – it is, of course, very possible that top hats just don’t quite fit at all with your film and actually ruin it. Don’t go overboard!
Nothing film, I like this term.
“‘moving image apparatus’
vs.
moving image continuum’
"
Apparatus.
Apparatus connotes a couple of important things, first of all the technical qualities of film (I disagree that film “just happens”, as it was invented and without the will to create it, remains inert if not outright nonexistent), and secondly leaves open room for the collaborative and crafts-skills sectors of filmmaking. Continuum, on the other hand, in the context of the definitive sentence doesn’t mean anything at all.
—PolarisDiB
Well what I was poorly (sorry) trying to say with it just happens is that even there exists the will to create film as you said it’s just another output from the natural tendency of human beings to modify nature and play with concepts and that create it’s not a mere create but a reordering, modification, melting of preexisting things. So if people don’t make films they make tools or make science or make philosophy or another type of art. They have to do something. Sounds obvious but it’s not so much me thinks. What I tried to imply with this is that art it’s not more hugely trascendental than let’s say engineering and no less important neither.
About continuum I used it to mean that film has not proper delimited frontiers. It melt in the boundaries with other human activities. Moving image continuum is another thing I guess.
Uli³Cain
What’s my philosophy on film…
I could say to entertain, and there are many movies where that is the exact thing that wants to be accomplished… I could say to inform, and there are many films where that is the exact thing that wants to be accomplished… Then there is provoke, inspire and many, many more verbs.
There is nothing wrong with escapism, and there is nothing wrong with high-mindedness, but what it comes down to is if the film is down well.
So I think my philosophy on is respect. Tackle anything subject in any one way you want, go crazy with visuals, or remain static, but in everything that is done respect your viewer, respect the story you are telling, respect your crew, respect your actors.
I think respect is missing greatly from much Hollywood fare today and that is why there is so much crap, the studios don’t want respect, they just want money. The talent of Hollywood is subjugating themselves to the dollar and churning out dreck so they can keep themselves in the eyes of the tabloid loving masses which includes the suits that cut the checks.
Filmmakers who have respect for the art form and how you connect to an audience you respect are the successful filmmakers.
(please excuse all typos and mungos)