I haven’t been able to forget The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover. It was ugly, very disturbing but now when I recall it, I really like it in retrospect. But my friend still thinks it was the craziest film I ever gave him. When I watched his short Dear Telephone, initially I thought it was directed by David Lynch. I don’t know if the two influenced each other in any way? But Greenaway had once said he wished he’d made Lynch’s Blue Velvet himself. Can anyone please tell me about any similarities/differences between the two?
I avoid Bollywood movies (Indian film industry and bollywood are two different things) these days. I like the kind of cinema Indian directors like Satyajit Ray and Guru Dutt made, films like Apur Sansar and Kagaz Ke Phool… But Bollywood is changing now, with films like Jab We Met, Rock On and Dev D. Anurag Kashyap’s newly released Dev D is the best Hindi film to come out in the past few years. Bollywood is trash and this man Kashyap is a rebel — you can call him Kim Ki-Duk of Indian cinema.
The Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica)
City of God (Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund)
The Apu trilogy (Satyajit Ray)
Drunken Angel (Akira Kurosawa)
Kagaz Ke Phool (Guru Dutt)
The Happy End (Chung Ji-woo)
Persona (Ingmar Bergman)
Dev D. (Anurag Kashyap)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)
Tae Guk Gi (Kang Je-gyu)
i started writing short stories in my early teens, then started doing journalism…
if you don’t know what happens to a creative soul if he has stick to facts alone, ask me…
now i’m struggling to return to my glorious ways and have started working on two screenplays.. as a person who has to live on his writing skills, it’s natural for me to seek a wider audience… i’m writing with some people in mind… who knows i might win a jackpot!
that’s the only way i can come out of this secured and peaceful life of a copyeditor and get into a creative hell!
Living In Oblivion
8 1/2
Kagaz Ke Phool
CInema Paradiso
Adaptation
I think Bresson, Bergman, Godard, Greenaway, they all speak in the ‘cinematic language.’ I haven’t seen The Big Picture (1989), but from what I hear I want to see it.
Here’s a comprehensive list of all the movies about movies:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/moviesaboutmovies.html
A film, without any visible protagonist, plays with the audience and forces them to become active as the invisible protagonist. The audience feel s/he is there, s/he feels part of the story. Normally the audience can connect to the film through the characters playing on the screen, but is there any film that keeps the gap which only the audience would fill?
Joshua W got it right. I was thinking in terms of the maximum possible limit of interactivity between the film medium and the viewer. In drama it’s possible to include the audience during the performance, but is it possible on film? Has anyone done similar experiments on the cinematic medium?
The POV shot of the balloon rider in the first part of Andrei Rublev makes us curious about the rider. We begin to imagine. Let’s take a radical departure from here: let’s expand this short into a full-length feature and leave a void in the film — written for the viewer — which only the viewer could fill. It will be like a metafilm experience but real.
Is it possible? Can we structure a film like this? Is film really that inflexible? I’m trying to make my question clear — but words fail here. Even films seem to fail to do what we are discussing about here.
Sans Soleil sounds interesting, thanks Grey Daisies.
I saw Pather Panchali two years ago. And now I don’t exactly remember the experience. Then I used to dislike film because I didn’t know the medium could be an art form. But I remember it was a treat. However, I’m not sure if it meets the conditions that I’m looking for here today.
Mike, Ozu was a good pointer. Let me explore more.
Saul Rodgar replied to this query on cinematography forum. Here’s what he says:
One of the only films I can think of in recent memory that somewhat fits that description is Goodbye, Dragon Inn. Not really a “film without a protagonist,” the aging movie theater being the real protagonist, this film does require the viewer to fill the gaps and stay focused on the almost non-existent narrative.
Other films that I can think of along these lines are Buñuel’s La Voie Lactée, some of Tarkovski’s work, such as The Sacrifice, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, etc.
“I am thinking interactive movies something on the lines of simulations or gaming or future of the film which lets the viewer become a character and react to the circumstances in real-time.”
Filmy Andy, you’re absolutely right.
Bob, thank you for all the pointers.
Joshua, Wavelength is good news. Actually, this whole curiosity came from similar narrative experiments. Many suggested Greenaway, and I believe he’d surely have something to say about this topic.
Kim, I’ve only seen Koyaanisqatsi. From what I read Baracka was treated in a similar way. But Bob’s pointers were close. Last Year at Marienbad is something. Persona is very engaging, yes, I think many good directors try to engage their audience as much as possible.
I’d like to point toward what I’m trying to express through a few films that I’ve seen so far.
If you remember Waltz of Bashier, it left so much to our own imagination — the whole experience was so engaging — it has that ‘gap’. It’s also because of the animation that we start to use our imagination and the experience becomes a little more ‘interactive.’ And the film is dream-like about a dream itself. The narrative structure also helps.
Most of the films that were mentioned are old. With new technology, we can explore new possibilities. Many questions come to mind right now. But I believe even with the available technologies, we can push the boundaries. This topic is about those films that aren’t ‘dead’ for the viewer; films that have significant ‘role’ for the viewer as well.
What do you say? We are making progress?
In ‘Dreams of Kurosawa’, the protagonist enters Van Gogh’s paintings through his imagination. Now if it were possible for the viewer to actually ‘enter’ the film — at least where the narrative demands the viewer to fill in the gaps — it can make the film a really interactive medium. I do hope technology might make it possible in future. If it does, it will open windows of opportunities for us.
You stay at work well over midnight even when your shift ends @ 9 — just to download those films you have heard about so much. You wanted to be a writer but after watching Persona, you think cinema too could be a powerful medium of expression. But you don’t stop writing because you think you must write that bestseller soon and it’ll probably get someone interested in filming it. You leave home with little money and absolutely no idea about what you would do next in a foreign land. You’re lucky, you get a job as a copyeditor for a U.S. newspaper (which means a lot for a 20-year-old from Kathmandu) but you start spending more time reading and writing about movies than watching them. You wait for your roommate to go somewhere so that you can watch your black and white films alone. You cannot make your life a priority and nothing else can make you happy because you still can’t get rid of this film that plays all the time inside your head. You quit your day job, because your favorite director asks you to come to join him in that film city and of course, you’re going.
Slayton thank you for the pointer and introducing that phrase ‘audience activity.’
James Steven Beverly wrote on cinematography forum:
“Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason people watch a movie is an audience likes to go along for the ride and does not necessarily want to drive the bus? If you want to become personally involved in the action, don’t watch a film, go play a video game. Narrative cinema is story telling. The audience derives a vicarious thrill through voyeuristic identification with the characters. I think if an audience becomes too personally involved in a narrative, it in some way destroys the reality they feel and disrupts the suspension of belief, essentially eroding the purpose of the narrative aspect of film making. In order to become personally involved in a narrative, an audience member would have to be able to make choices that could effect to storyline, which negates any artistry the film maker might have attempted because art is, by definition, manipulation so simply forcing an audience to be attentive is not enough and creates resentment in that audience member.
Watching a movie shouldn’t be work, like all great art, it should be about emotion. A protagonist and an antagonist is essential in a narrative even if they are both the same person as in the case of “Psycho”. Placing the audience member as the protagonist, forcing them to become personally involved in the story as themselves and not by identifying with the characters, then not allowing them to effect the storyline essentially make them impotent and is ultimately unsatisfying. Even in those few experimental films where the characters speak to the camera and by extension to the audience as though they were speaking to another character in the film then give the audience the choice as to how the plot should proceed be electronic vote which quiet literally involves them in the film have failed miserably. An audience doesn’t want to do that much work. What they ultimately truly want from the film experience is to escape from themselves and their lives for a brief time."
James, perhaps what you say is one of the fundamental criterion of filmmaking. But I was wondering if there was any successful experiments where an auteur used the idea of audience activity to the extreme?
Audience want a ride. Ok, I’ll drive but since their destination is in my hands, I want to be a little more careful. I don’t want to leave them nowhere. Audience don’t like to think, they just want to be shown. But some films talk to you and leave you thinking. They entertain, they amuse and you meet someone you know or would like to know or meet yourself on the screen. So the idea of audience activity makes sense and has been an underlying aspect of these films.
Although activism isn’t my goal, I want to tell something meaningful through my work. And if I can make them participate in the medium, it will give me more power as a director. It’s all about playing with the viewer’s mind after all.
Bob, yes, I was talking about active viewing. You are very excited about the whole idea of audience interactivity, no doubt. The future looks promising for filmmakers who want to exploit whatever interactivity technology might offer.
But from the same thread that you suggested, I’d like to quote Patrick:
“I think that the interactivity of New Media is a false promise…. the game is rigged, and what is invited is not honest contemplation, but merely “figuring out the next movie”…. most games that I’m familiar with are, at heart, puzzles with actions to be “figured out.” I sincerely hope the day never comes when movies become interactive…. I don’t think motion pictures stand to gain anything via interactivity. I want To know that Hitchcock and David Lean and Tim Burton have made the choices (this is the Ebert argument that I think holds up.)…. and aren’t leaving it up to me to take the next step. But this isn’t to say I want them to do my thinking for me…. and this is where passivity comes into play. I think motion pictures are often a passive experience, but needn’t be, at the best they aren’t….. inviting critical thought is something that many of the best films do and rely on for their impact. But if a video game is active only because you move your thumbs about and figure out where the medipack is…. or even which corners you can go around in a game like Passages….. than this level of activity doesn’t seem to stretch far from passivity in a very meaningful way. I’ve no doubt that some games can give you a migraine thinking so hard about a given problem….. but by getting to move around on your own, I don’t see this as making you far more active than getting a migraine thinking about the issues and conundrums of a filmed narrative. It may take more active thought and hand-eye coordination to complete a task in a video game, but this thought is limited to the task at hand…. a great movie will give you opportunities to leave it behind and contemplate the world around you, which is a very active process, even if it isn’t interactive.”
Patrick does make a convincing argument. Is it interactivity in true sense? I’m trying to stick to the tradition (deciding the structure for the viewer without giving them you-can-choose options) while exploring new possibilities. However, what matters at the end of the day, is of course if you achieved your goal of telling a story and creating an impact best desired. I think it’s a tough call but this human desire to accomplish something unique and new probably drives all of us.
I was thinking why Watchmen the movie isn’t available online. What happened to Demonoids and aXXos? Were these infamous pirates also sold out? I am a pirate. I have been accused of misusing my office scanner for scanning books for free distribution in the past! (I liked a story from an ancient Chinese Literature book so much that I wanted everybody to read it and relish it. You know only good stuff does that to you!) Here, I’m not only defending piracy, but also trying to rethink the development in terms of the endless possibilities that have come with it.
Way into future:
If p2p and torrents could be transformed into an organized distribution network, the business fraternity would surely benefit. Instead of fighting piracy, I would like to think how the mankind can use it to the advantage of our civilization.
Imagine a massive database like Wikipedia or Google that will catalog all products that could be sold online. These products would be linked to open bank/paypal accounts of individual products. All the pirates would use a link – ‘Donate, if you like’ — compulsorily on each page on the entire cyberspace allowing ‘free’ — eproduct — downloads. The money would go directly to the creator or the company which legally owns a product.
I believe the idea of openID — a free single online identity — will soon become a reality. Soon, there will be a need to shape a robust electronic culture of shared responsibility i.e. the business of loss and profit in a new cyber market.
Reality Check:
If ‘eproduct’ network becomes a reality, then all p2p users would become e-retailers in an ever-expanding file-sharing network. However, you might ask: Are we willing to pay for any services or products that could be made available or accessible for free — irrespective of the legal aspect? Well, let’s leave that question for future. We won’t get the answer until the system is in the place. The world is like what it should be. If everyone had money, there would be no market for anything ‘free.’ Why not give a chance to people to buy when they can? And still ‘download,’ when they can’t? Piracy isn’t an isolated phenomenon. We’ve to appreciate its cultural and technological significance. [Refer to Steal This Film series.]
When every one of us starts using ‘internet cash,’ there will be a different management system in place to make it work. Seriously, I want to promote piracy and protect it. I want to harness its power because it has potential to change the world, for good. I’m an optimist when it comes to the mankind. But right now, we got to think how to put this system in place. There is a digital divide to bridge. There are other challenges. But there will be a day when a computer — or more than one — becomes a reality for each and every individual. We can’t stop films from being available for free and we can’t even complain about it because many of us here in Asia are learning cinema through the very medium.
We must have faith in our audience — the people — that they won’t let us die. We must find a way for piracy and professionals to mutually exist in a new world — e-world. You know about the anti-copyright movement, don’t you? As for my Watchmen, before I could catch it in theaters here, it’s already gone. The book’s just f**k*g awesome. I’ve decided to wait for whatever comes first — an original DVD or a good quality torrent.
[For those interested in my Chinese obsession, here are the download links:
‘Curlylocks’ is a cocky tale about a ‘regular’ guy by Chen Jiangong. It was translated from Chinese by Stephen Fleming and published in the 1988 issue of Chinese Literature.]
Hi, I need to buy a movie camera to shoot some scenes for my film.
I heard from some friends that Canon D7’s video camera is really good. If you have used Canon D7, please tell me what are its limitations as a video camera? I want to use footages shot with it in the final film to be shot with a better HD camera (hopefully!). Or should I get a handy camera instead? Any suggestions?
Waiting to hear from you :) thankx
‘The Auteurs’ guys wouldn’t live up to the great auteurs of cinema. Had they wanted to please or attract millions, they wouldn’t have been our source of inspiration, strength & admiration. The point is not to give up just because the world can’t spell you right. But to educate it to get the auteurs right. Why did they struggle to make those films? Why are ‘we’ struggling not to compromise? I come here because I respect the Auteurs and I believe this is the case with many people. If you are going to stick with Mubi, why not make two websites—one with Mubi & one with The Auteurs—instead?
I still remember the thrill of discovering the word ‘auteur.’ It took a lot of hard work to reach that level of understanding and appreciation. There are millions of people who don’t care about the kind of cinema that are here. The change, for people like that, is pointless. There’s a need for a website like The Auteurs today, not for something as stupid and cheap like ‘mubi.’ (‘Movie’ is still better than ‘mubi.’)
Efe, if you haven’t found time to go through comments on Indiewire blog, check out some of them here:
“This is the most idiotic, sell-out, lowest common denominator name EVER. The most obviously pure capitalist and brain dead marketing bullshit move a respectable site like The Auteurs could have ever made. IDIOTS.
posted by auteur on May 13, 2010 at 1:31pm PDT
Insane! Because Cakarel can’t get figure out how to market a real word that has a specific meaning to people who love movies he hires a bunch of ad agencies to make up a fake name that sounds like baby talk.
posted by MDL on May 13, 2010 at 2:11pm PDT”
“It had to happen. The cinephile site The Auteurs has changed its name.”
Whoever wrote that first paragraph sucks big time! The writer can’t get the spirit of the people who are on
The Auteurs.
Efe, hang on, revert to The Auteurs, it’s of course going to be difficult. We are with you. Don’t give up yet. Don’t let us down.
Kurosawa vs. Kobayashi: The Futility of Exposition
After watching The Human Condition (1959-1961), one gets the feeling that Akira Kurosawa was like the quitter(s) in Masaki Kobayashi’s trilogy. They called Kurosawa a coward (he tried to commit suicide). They accused him of not confronting the enemies of his times (he preferred ghosts of the national past to living devils). They said he didn’t give his villains a face or put on too tough a battle. But then the Russians or the commies don’t come across as the real villains in The Human Condition. The real enemies of the people of Japan are the Japanese themselves. Kurosawa makes exactly the same point over and again in most of his films, doesn’t he? Take The Bad Sleep Well (1960) or Red Beard (1965) for instance, aren’t they similar to The Human Condition in their themes minus the political exposition?
While I enjoyed the sword fight in Harakiri (1962) (it was otherwise a dull movie), I think Sadao Yamanaka’s Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937) is far superior in its representation of the reality of a Samurai family fallen on difficult times. If Kurosawa does seem Hollywoodish like Satyajit Ray (another filmmaker accused of being ’ too Western’), Kobayashi’s dependency on novelistic device to use space and time doesn’t necessarily mean that he makes an impact as one would expect from such a great polemic. Perhaps that is what David Thomson means when he says Masaki Kobayashi isn’t quite original like Yasujiro Ozu or Kenji Mizoguchi (and Kurosawa is not as great as the both masters).
The manner in which the young soldier follows Kaji in The Human Condition is similar to the young doctor who ultimately decides to give his life to the human cause that ‘Red Beard’ champions. In Red Beard, the enemy is once again the society or the system (or rather the ‘poverty’ which is often the result of injustice and exploitation, and which is also the starting point of any ideology).
After watching Kobayashi, one begins to question the judgment of Kurosawa, and for obvious reasons starts to wish if only Kurosawa were a little ‘brave’ to depict the white invaders in true flesh.
As far as Ray is concerned, I don’t care whether people think he is Hollywoodish or European. It is because of him that I’m writing about films here on TheAuteurs.com :) For me, Ray is essentially Indian.
And Kurosawa a favorite.
Peter Greenaway over 3 years ago
I haven’t been able to forget The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover. It was ugly, very disturbing but now when I recall it, I really like it in retrospect. But my friend still thinks it was the craziest film I ever gave him. When I watched his short Dear Telephone, initially I thought it was directed by David Lynch. I don’t know if the two influenced each other in any way? But Greenaway had once said he wished he’d made Lynch’s Blue Velvet himself. Can anyone please tell me about any similarities/differences between the two?
Go to Comment
Anybody seen films from India? over 3 years ago
I avoid Bollywood movies (Indian film industry and bollywood are two different things) these days. I like the kind of cinema Indian directors like Satyajit Ray and Guru Dutt made, films like Apur Sansar and Kagaz Ke Phool… But Bollywood is changing now, with films like Jab We Met, Rock On and Dev D. Anurag Kashyap’s newly released Dev D is the best Hindi film to come out in the past few years. Bollywood is trash and this man Kashyap is a rebel — you can call him Kim Ki-Duk of Indian cinema.
Go to Comment
Anybody seen films from India? over 3 years ago
@Andy — “Indian films are still far from being artistically heralded and aesthetically right.”
I agree but I guess the time has come. And this time I don’t think it’s a false hope.
Even Kashyap feels Zoya Akhtar’s debut Luck by Chance is a another proof of this.
Go to Comment
Here it is... Top 10 films of all time? over 3 years ago
The Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica)
City of God (Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund)
The Apu trilogy (Satyajit Ray)
Drunken Angel (Akira Kurosawa)
Kagaz Ke Phool (Guru Dutt)
The Happy End (Chung Ji-woo)
Persona (Ingmar Bergman)
Dev D. (Anurag Kashyap)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)
Tae Guk Gi (Kang Je-gyu)
Go to Comment
screenplays about 3 years ago
i started writing short stories in my early teens, then started doing journalism…
if you don’t know what happens to a creative soul if he has stick to facts alone, ask me…
now i’m struggling to return to my glorious ways and have started working on two screenplays.. as a person who has to live on his writing skills, it’s natural for me to seek a wider audience… i’m writing with some people in mind… who knows i might win a jackpot!
that’s the only way i can come out of this secured and peaceful life of a copyeditor and get into a creative hell!
Go to Comment
Where are you from? about 3 years ago
Where do I belong?
Kathmandu. New Delhi. Mumbai. New York.
Go to Comment
Best Film About Film? about 3 years ago
Some of my favorites are:
Living In Oblivion
8 1/2
Kagaz Ke Phool
CInema Paradiso
Adaptation
I think Bresson, Bergman, Godard, Greenaway, they all speak in the ‘cinematic language.’ I haven’t seen The Big Picture (1989), but from what I hear I want to see it.
Here’s a comprehensive list of all the movies about movies:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/moviesaboutmovies.html
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
A film, without any visible protagonist, plays with the audience and forces them to become active as the invisible protagonist. The audience feel s/he is there, s/he feels part of the story. Normally the audience can connect to the film through the characters playing on the screen, but is there any film that keeps the gap which only the audience would fill?
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
Joshua W got it right. I was thinking in terms of the maximum possible limit of interactivity between the film medium and the viewer. In drama it’s possible to include the audience during the performance, but is it possible on film? Has anyone done similar experiments on the cinematic medium?
The POV shot of the balloon rider in the first part of Andrei Rublev makes us curious about the rider. We begin to imagine. Let’s take a radical departure from here: let’s expand this short into a full-length feature and leave a void in the film — written for the viewer — which only the viewer could fill. It will be like a metafilm experience but real.
Is it possible? Can we structure a film like this? Is film really that inflexible? I’m trying to make my question clear — but words fail here. Even films seem to fail to do what we are discussing about here.
Sans Soleil sounds interesting, thanks Grey Daisies.
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
I saw Pather Panchali two years ago. And now I don’t exactly remember the experience. Then I used to dislike film because I didn’t know the medium could be an art form. But I remember it was a treat. However, I’m not sure if it meets the conditions that I’m looking for here today.
Mike, Ozu was a good pointer. Let me explore more.
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
Saul Rodgar replied to this query on cinematography forum. Here’s what he says:
One of the only films I can think of in recent memory that somewhat fits that description is Goodbye, Dragon Inn. Not really a “film without a protagonist,” the aging movie theater being the real protagonist, this film does require the viewer to fill the gaps and stay focused on the almost non-existent narrative.
Other films that I can think of along these lines are Buñuel’s La Voie Lactée, some of Tarkovski’s work, such as The Sacrifice, Andrei Rublev, Solaris, etc.
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=38572&st=0&gopid=284962&#entry284962
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
“I am thinking interactive movies something on the lines of simulations or gaming or future of the film which lets the viewer become a character and react to the circumstances in real-time.”
Filmy Andy, you’re absolutely right.
Bob, thank you for all the pointers.
Joshua, Wavelength is good news. Actually, this whole curiosity came from similar narrative experiments. Many suggested Greenaway, and I believe he’d surely have something to say about this topic.
Kim, I’ve only seen Koyaanisqatsi. From what I read Baracka was treated in a similar way. But Bob’s pointers were close. Last Year at Marienbad is something. Persona is very engaging, yes, I think many good directors try to engage their audience as much as possible.
I’d like to point toward what I’m trying to express through a few films that I’ve seen so far.
If you remember Waltz of Bashier, it left so much to our own imagination — the whole experience was so engaging — it has that ‘gap’. It’s also because of the animation that we start to use our imagination and the experience becomes a little more ‘interactive.’ And the film is dream-like about a dream itself. The narrative structure also helps.
Most of the films that were mentioned are old. With new technology, we can explore new possibilities. Many questions come to mind right now. But I believe even with the available technologies, we can push the boundaries. This topic is about those films that aren’t ‘dead’ for the viewer; films that have significant ‘role’ for the viewer as well.
What do you say? We are making progress?
In ‘Dreams of Kurosawa’, the protagonist enters Van Gogh’s paintings through his imagination. Now if it were possible for the viewer to actually ‘enter’ the film — at least where the narrative demands the viewer to fill in the gaps — it can make the film a really interactive medium. I do hope technology might make it possible in future. If it does, it will open windows of opportunities for us.
Go to Comment
Question from a student film maker. about 3 years ago
Drew, that’s a good news!
Go to Comment
You know your a cinephile when? about 3 years ago
You stay at work well over midnight even when your shift ends @ 9 — just to download those films you have heard about so much. You wanted to be a writer but after watching Persona, you think cinema too could be a powerful medium of expression. But you don’t stop writing because you think you must write that bestseller soon and it’ll probably get someone interested in filming it. You leave home with little money and absolutely no idea about what you would do next in a foreign land. You’re lucky, you get a job as a copyeditor for a U.S. newspaper (which means a lot for a 20-year-old from Kathmandu) but you start spending more time reading and writing about movies than watching them. You wait for your roommate to go somewhere so that you can watch your black and white films alone. You cannot make your life a priority and nothing else can make you happy because you still can’t get rid of this film that plays all the time inside your head. You quit your day job, because your favorite director asks you to come to join him in that film city and of course, you’re going.
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
Slayton thank you for the pointer and introducing that phrase ‘audience activity.’
James Steven Beverly wrote on cinematography forum:
“Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason people watch a movie is an audience likes to go along for the ride and does not necessarily want to drive the bus? If you want to become personally involved in the action, don’t watch a film, go play a video game. Narrative cinema is story telling. The audience derives a vicarious thrill through voyeuristic identification with the characters. I think if an audience becomes too personally involved in a narrative, it in some way destroys the reality they feel and disrupts the suspension of belief, essentially eroding the purpose of the narrative aspect of film making. In order to become personally involved in a narrative, an audience member would have to be able to make choices that could effect to storyline, which negates any artistry the film maker might have attempted because art is, by definition, manipulation so simply forcing an audience to be attentive is not enough and creates resentment in that audience member.
Watching a movie shouldn’t be work, like all great art, it should be about emotion. A protagonist and an antagonist is essential in a narrative even if they are both the same person as in the case of “Psycho”. Placing the audience member as the protagonist, forcing them to become personally involved in the story as themselves and not by identifying with the characters, then not allowing them to effect the storyline essentially make them impotent and is ultimately unsatisfying. Even in those few experimental films where the characters speak to the camera and by extension to the audience as though they were speaking to another character in the film then give the audience the choice as to how the plot should proceed be electronic vote which quiet literally involves them in the film have failed miserably. An audience doesn’t want to do that much work. What they ultimately truly want from the film experience is to escape from themselves and their lives for a brief time."
James, perhaps what you say is one of the fundamental criterion of filmmaking. But I was wondering if there was any successful experiments where an auteur used the idea of audience activity to the extreme?
Audience want a ride. Ok, I’ll drive but since their destination is in my hands, I want to be a little more careful. I don’t want to leave them nowhere. Audience don’t like to think, they just want to be shown. But some films talk to you and leave you thinking. They entertain, they amuse and you meet someone you know or would like to know or meet yourself on the screen. So the idea of audience activity makes sense and has been an underlying aspect of these films.
Although activism isn’t my goal, I want to tell something meaningful through my work. And if I can make them participate in the medium, it will give me more power as a director. It’s all about playing with the viewer’s mind after all.
Go to Comment
Playing with the viewer's mind about 3 years ago
Bob, yes, I was talking about active viewing. You are very excited about the whole idea of audience interactivity, no doubt. The future looks promising for filmmakers who want to exploit whatever interactivity technology might offer.
But from the same thread that you suggested, I’d like to quote Patrick:
“I think that the interactivity of New Media is a false promise…. the game is rigged, and what is invited is not honest contemplation, but merely “figuring out the next movie”…. most games that I’m familiar with are, at heart, puzzles with actions to be “figured out.” I sincerely hope the day never comes when movies become interactive…. I don’t think motion pictures stand to gain anything via interactivity. I want To know that Hitchcock and David Lean and Tim Burton have made the choices (this is the Ebert argument that I think holds up.)…. and aren’t leaving it up to me to take the next step. But this isn’t to say I want them to do my thinking for me…. and this is where passivity comes into play. I think motion pictures are often a passive experience, but needn’t be, at the best they aren’t….. inviting critical thought is something that many of the best films do and rely on for their impact. But if a video game is active only because you move your thumbs about and figure out where the medipack is…. or even which corners you can go around in a game like Passages….. than this level of activity doesn’t seem to stretch far from passivity in a very meaningful way. I’ve no doubt that some games can give you a migraine thinking so hard about a given problem….. but by getting to move around on your own, I don’t see this as making you far more active than getting a migraine thinking about the issues and conundrums of a filmed narrative. It may take more active thought and hand-eye coordination to complete a task in a video game, but this thought is limited to the task at hand…. a great movie will give you opportunities to leave it behind and contemplate the world around you, which is a very active process, even if it isn’t interactive.”
Patrick does make a convincing argument. Is it interactivity in true sense? I’m trying to stick to the tradition (deciding the structure for the viewer without giving them you-can-choose options) while exploring new possibilities. However, what matters at the end of the day, is of course if you achieved your goal of telling a story and creating an impact best desired. I think it’s a tough call but this human desire to accomplish something unique and new probably drives all of us.
Go to Comment
WALL-E about 3 years ago
Eeeeeeeee-vaaa! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-vaah!
Go to Comment
Rethinking piracy: E-distribution network in e-market about 3 years ago
I was thinking why Watchmen the movie isn’t available online. What happened to Demonoids and aXXos? Were these infamous pirates also sold out? I am a pirate. I have been accused of misusing my office scanner for scanning books for free distribution in the past! (I liked a story from an ancient Chinese Literature book so much that I wanted everybody to read it and relish it. You know only good stuff does that to you!) Here, I’m not only defending piracy, but also trying to rethink the development in terms of the endless possibilities that have come with it.
Way into future:
If p2p and torrents could be transformed into an organized distribution network, the business fraternity would surely benefit. Instead of fighting piracy, I would like to think how the mankind can use it to the advantage of our civilization.
Imagine a massive database like Wikipedia or Google that will catalog all products that could be sold online. These products would be linked to open bank/paypal accounts of individual products. All the pirates would use a link – ‘Donate, if you like’ — compulsorily on each page on the entire cyberspace allowing ‘free’ — eproduct — downloads. The money would go directly to the creator or the company which legally owns a product.
I believe the idea of openID — a free single online identity — will soon become a reality. Soon, there will be a need to shape a robust electronic culture of shared responsibility i.e. the business of loss and profit in a new cyber market.
Reality Check:
If ‘eproduct’ network becomes a reality, then all p2p users would become e-retailers in an ever-expanding file-sharing network. However, you might ask: Are we willing to pay for any services or products that could be made available or accessible for free — irrespective of the legal aspect? Well, let’s leave that question for future. We won’t get the answer until the system is in the place. The world is like what it should be. If everyone had money, there would be no market for anything ‘free.’ Why not give a chance to people to buy when they can? And still ‘download,’ when they can’t? Piracy isn’t an isolated phenomenon. We’ve to appreciate its cultural and technological significance. [Refer to Steal This Film series.]
When every one of us starts using ‘internet cash,’ there will be a different management system in place to make it work. Seriously, I want to promote piracy and protect it. I want to harness its power because it has potential to change the world, for good. I’m an optimist when it comes to the mankind. But right now, we got to think how to put this system in place. There is a digital divide to bridge. There are other challenges. But there will be a day when a computer — or more than one — becomes a reality for each and every individual. We can’t stop films from being available for free and we can’t even complain about it because many of us here in Asia are learning cinema through the very medium.
We must have faith in our audience — the people — that they won’t let us die. We must find a way for piracy and professionals to mutually exist in a new world — e-world. You know about the anti-copyright movement, don’t you? As for my Watchmen, before I could catch it in theaters here, it’s already gone. The book’s just f**k*g awesome. I’ve decided to wait for whatever comes first — an original DVD or a good quality torrent.
[For those interested in my Chinese obsession, here are the download links:
http://kathspeaks.googlepages.com/Curlylocks1.pdf
http://kathspeaks.googlepages.com/Curlylocks2.pdf
http://kathspeaks.googlepages.com/Curlylocks3.pdf
‘Curlylocks’ is a cocky tale about a ‘regular’ guy by Chen Jiangong. It was translated from Chinese by Stephen Fleming and published in the 1988 issue of Chinese Literature.]
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it about 3 years ago
Three Monkeys: 9/10
Go to Comment
Can I shoot a film with Canon D7? about 2 years ago
Hi, I need to buy a movie camera to shoot some scenes for my film.
I heard from some friends that Canon D7’s video camera is really good. If you have used Canon D7, please tell me what are its limitations as a video camera? I want to use footages shot with it in the final film to be shot with a better HD camera (hopefully!). Or should I get a handy camera instead? Any suggestions?
Waiting to hear from you :) thankx
Go to Comment
Can I shoot a film with Canon D7? about 2 years ago
thanks for the link Dequinix
Go to Comment
Can I shoot a film with Canon D7? about 2 years ago
canon d7 or a good handycam? that’s my question! is the choice really as difficult as it seems to me?
Go to Comment
Can I shoot a film with Canon D7? about 2 years ago
thankx guys, you are surely in love with d7…
Teddy, thankx a ton :) i was considering a big screen exhibition…
Go to Comment
mubi about 2 years ago
‘The Auteurs’ guys wouldn’t live up to the great auteurs of cinema. Had they wanted to please or attract millions, they wouldn’t have been our source of inspiration, strength & admiration. The point is not to give up just because the world can’t spell you right. But to educate it to get the auteurs right. Why did they struggle to make those films? Why are ‘we’ struggling not to compromise? I come here because I respect the Auteurs and I believe this is the case with many people. If you are going to stick with Mubi, why not make two websites—one with Mubi & one with The Auteurs—instead?
I still remember the thrill of discovering the word ‘auteur.’ It took a lot of hard work to reach that level of understanding and appreciation. There are millions of people who don’t care about the kind of cinema that are here. The change, for people like that, is pointless. There’s a need for a website like The Auteurs today, not for something as stupid and cheap like ‘mubi.’ (‘Movie’ is still better than ‘mubi.’)
Efe, if you haven’t found time to go through comments on Indiewire blog, check out some of them here:
“This is the most idiotic, sell-out, lowest common denominator name EVER. The most obviously pure capitalist and brain dead marketing bullshit move a respectable site like The Auteurs could have ever made. IDIOTS.
posted by auteur on May 13, 2010 at 1:31pm PDT
Insane! Because Cakarel can’t get figure out how to market a real word that has a specific meaning to people who love movies he hires a bunch of ad agencies to make up a fake name that sounds like baby talk.
posted by MDL on May 13, 2010 at 2:11pm PDT”
“It had to happen. The cinephile site The Auteurs has changed its name.”
Whoever wrote that first paragraph sucks big time! The writer can’t get the spirit of the people who are on
The Auteurs.
Efe, hang on, revert to The Auteurs, it’s of course going to be difficult. We are with you. Don’t give up yet. Don’t let us down.
Go to Comment
MUBI: VOTE about 2 years ago
I preferred “theauteurs.com”: (92)
Go to Comment
Why did we change our name to MUBI? about 2 years ago
Efe, are you listening?
Go to Comment
Why did we change our name to MUBI? about 2 years ago
“Draw the attention of the public (as we say that a chimney draws).”
It’s really easier to type mubi.com ;) Guys, get used to it.
Go to Comment
Can I shoot a film with Canon D7? almost 2 years ago
Guys, just wanted to say that we bought 5D… Life of a guerrilla filmmaker can be exciting at times :D
Thanks!
Go to Comment
Currently watching The Human Condition over 1 year ago
Kurosawa vs. Kobayashi: The Futility of Exposition
After watching The Human Condition (1959-1961), one gets the feeling that Akira Kurosawa was like the quitter(s) in Masaki Kobayashi’s trilogy. They called Kurosawa a coward (he tried to commit suicide). They accused him of not confronting the enemies of his times (he preferred ghosts of the national past to living devils). They said he didn’t give his villains a face or put on too tough a battle. But then the Russians or the commies don’t come across as the real villains in The Human Condition. The real enemies of the people of Japan are the Japanese themselves. Kurosawa makes exactly the same point over and again in most of his films, doesn’t he? Take The Bad Sleep Well (1960) or Red Beard (1965) for instance, aren’t they similar to The Human Condition in their themes minus the political exposition?
While I enjoyed the sword fight in Harakiri (1962) (it was otherwise a dull movie), I think Sadao Yamanaka’s Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937) is far superior in its representation of the reality of a Samurai family fallen on difficult times. If Kurosawa does seem Hollywoodish like Satyajit Ray (another filmmaker accused of being ’ too Western’), Kobayashi’s dependency on novelistic device to use space and time doesn’t necessarily mean that he makes an impact as one would expect from such a great polemic. Perhaps that is what David Thomson means when he says Masaki Kobayashi isn’t quite original like Yasujiro Ozu or Kenji Mizoguchi (and Kurosawa is not as great as the both masters).
Go to Comment
Currently watching The Human Condition over 1 year ago
The manner in which the young soldier follows Kaji in The Human Condition is similar to the young doctor who ultimately decides to give his life to the human cause that ‘Red Beard’ champions. In Red Beard, the enemy is once again the society or the system (or rather the ‘poverty’ which is often the result of injustice and exploitation, and which is also the starting point of any ideology).
After watching Kobayashi, one begins to question the judgment of Kurosawa, and for obvious reasons starts to wish if only Kurosawa were a little ‘brave’ to depict the white invaders in true flesh.
As far as Ray is concerned, I don’t care whether people think he is Hollywoodish or European. It is because of him that I’m writing about films here on TheAuteurs.com :) For me, Ray is essentially Indian.
And Kurosawa a favorite.
Go to Comment