@DARKM@TTERS I’m going to say this at the risk of sounding incredibly unintelligent, but what you are referring to as animation puppets, are the puppets used in films like Coraline, correct? Coraline is one of my favorite films. Not just one of my favorite “animated” films, one of my favorite films in general.
You got it – it just refers to a puppet that’s animated a frame at a time as opposed to being manipulated in realtime. Coraline is amazing – though still nothing has quite replaced Nightmare Before Christmas for me – but ParaNorman looks like it might give Coraline a run for its money.
DarkM@tters, you do, though, have to tell your audience why.
What is their motivation to watch your film? Why should they care about what is happening on screen?
At the heart of art is communication, what is being communicated in a photograph by Ansel Adams, a painting by Dali, a film by Brakhage or a movie by Bay, a composition by Strauss?
Communication with an actor helps communicate to an audience. In animation, even the capacity of god’s lonely man, there needs to be some communication somewhere, even if that somewhere is the audience.
If one isn’t interested in communication, well, that’s just masturbation.
I don’t have to explain why to the puppets because – well, the puppets are me! But my number one priority is to communicate to the audience. In fact, concerning your closing statement – I always say “the audience comes first”. It’s our job as filmmakers to make sure they do. And if we do our job well enough – then they’ll pay us for it. Hmm…
Now, DarkM@tters, would you agree that if someone asks you questions and forces you to express your thoughts out loud, that that in itself can help you better understand the motivation yourself.
Why? is the greatest and most important question ever.
Should I raise my right hand and swear to tell the truth? :) I feel a bit like I’m being cross-examined here lol!
Are you asking me to conjecture about directing actors? That’s something I’ve never done and never really thought about, outside of reading books about various directors etc. But it seems to me that certain actors respond better to ‘understanding their motivation’. But it takes all kinds, and some directors seem to get great results while leaving actors in the dark. Example, if Kubrick wants Shelley Duvall to be stressed out and haggard, then he might refuse to tell her anything and make her do the scene over and over until she basically becomes the role she’s playing.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and I believe there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to anything, especially in the creative arts.
“When asked why he did this or that, (Akira Kurosawa) says ’I simply make a film as I want it to be”."
- from A.K. (1985)
Having to explain yourself has to be the worst expectation of any artist.
“When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, ’It’s in the script.’ If he says, ‘But what’s my motivation?, ’ I say, ‘Your salary.’”
Wait, it’s in the script? So, the writer is the auteur, not the director.
They’re often the same person.
If you’re interested in communicating with too many, you’re a sellout.
If you’re only interested in communicating with a few, or no one , you’re an artist.
If a work is only ever seen by its creator is it in media?
“They’re often the same person.”
Actually, more often their not, but we’ve really derailed from general concept of ‘collaboration’ to platitudes of no real significance regarding art’s various levels of communication.
Yeah, I’ve already decided to start a new thread about communication and film
And Linden, you’d have to ask Vincent Gallo your last question
Much better to isolate it in context. There are many aspects to that discussion that haven’t been seeded enough in this conversation to branch out and grow without getting tangled and confused with other parts.
To the OP:
I started as a fan, opened my horizons, then wrote a script, then filmed a shitload of footage for a short or three. Next step—direct the script.
I think the people who rage against the very idea of auteurism are reacting to an extremist (strawman) idea of what an auteur is.
Sometimes a director is just another cog in the machine, but in some cases the director has a vision and everyone involved is there to help that vision get realized.
To say he can’t be the auteur because he didn’t write the screenplay is like Obama saying “you didn’t make that” – it’s enough for the director to choose a script that says something in accordance with his own auteurist sensibilities. For instance, if he has strong ideas about masculinity and he finds a script or a novel that sets his imagination afire on that subject. Any director could do the job, sure, but not in the particular way he would.
An auteurist director chooses his collaborators in the same way – because they can help him realize his particular vision, and he works closely to help them understand what that vision is.
In either case the director is in charge overall – the difference is whether he’s making his own statement with the material or just fatifhully trying to make the movie laid out inthe script.
Can you confuse a Tarrantino with a Malick? If not, then I guess there must be something to the auteur theory, huh?
Considering I want to be a film critic, I’m a critic and cinephile thrown into one convoluted human being.
I was thinking of raising a similar topic, I’m really interested to know what percentage of cinema lovers are involved in the film business professionally (either on the production side or as critics).
Myself, I’m selling real estate :-)
But I have a profound love of cinema, that grabbed me when I was in high school and has never left me (I hope that will never leave me), even in times, when I was watching considerably less films (like when my children were babies). And I’m also interested to hear whether there are former cinephiles, people who have lost love of film and on what reasons. But I guess these people, if they exist, will not be in this forum, plus these would probably be quite sad stories…
Everybody’s a critic . . . trust me.
Student of film-making.
Made a couple of short films and documentaries.
A cinephile, yes, but not a mad one.
I’m more attached to making films than talking about them.
Although yes, everyone’s a critic and everyone’s a romantic when it comes to cinema.
“I think the people who rage against the very idea of auteurism are reacting to an extremist (strawman) idea of what an auteur is.”
Few people here rage against the idea of auteurism. It is useful from time to time to point out that sometimes other very important creative fields are being overlooked as an unintentional consequence of auteurism.
“Everybody’s a critic . . . trust me.”
Useful for this thread to differentiate between those who draw income from or publish their criticism, versus those who merely have opinions about movies, tempered to a small bit by the realm of amateur criticism i.e. blogs and their like, the same way some people here work professionally in the quote-unquote ‘industry’ versus some people who are students versus some people who just like making videos for themselves and friends.
I think the people who rage with the very idea of auteurism are reacting to an extremist (strawman) idea of what film making is.
Lol ok, rage was definitely a poor choice of wordage.
And Uli – made me LOL for reals!
ALBERT Hitchcock is a sellout and one of the biggest artists in the last century.