“Bergman: We were supposed to collaborate once, and along with Kurosawa make one love story each for a movie produced by Dino de Laurentiis. I flew down to Rome with my script and spent a lot of time with Fellini while we waited for Kurosawa, who finally couldn’t leave Japan because of his health, so the project went belly-up. Fellini was about to finish Satyricon. I spent a lot of time in the studio and saw him work. I loved him both as a director and as a person, and I still watch his movies, like La Strada and that childhood rememberance – what’s that called again?
The interviewer has also seen the movie several times, but just now the title slips his mind. Bergman laughs delightedly.
Bergman: Great that you’re also a bit senile! That pleases me.
(Later the same day, several hours after the interview, the phone rings. It’s Bergman. ‘AMARCORD!’ he shouts.)”
It’s from a Swedish newspaper. The original interview on their site is gone but I can post the full translation if you like.
Now can someone oblige me and tell me what Welles said about Bresson?
Strong and realistic female characters? I’d like to add/reinforce John Cassavetes. His films have women who are actually women, not female men or hollow objects. That is to say that he recognises the differences and relationships between the genders. Barbara Loden’s Wanda is an excellent female director/strong female example. Women have been tragically underexplored over the course of cinema. I’ll make sure to check out some suggestions here. Thanks, guys.
He said he wanted to play the audience like a piano. I think these very low and shallow aspirations made for technically proficient films that lacked any sense of life. I don’t think they’re complex in the way that they’re transformative or will stay in your head without you trying to recall them, more in the way that unravelling a ball of string is “complex.” It’s laborious, it might be mentally rewarding, and there’s nothing there at the end.
“Trust the art, never the artist.”
I agree with this, but Hitchcock is pretty straightforward here. I know that I personally couldn’t learn anything from Hitchcock’s characters or films as they’re too far removed from my life and experiences. That layer of artifice pervades every facet in my eyes. The editing which you mention – the rhythmic choice of shots, their positioning – all that is an extension of his technical prowess. Is Rear Window, as an example, a subversive commentary on the role of the director as Hitchcock sees it? Could be, but I can’t muster up anything more than an “A-ha!” in response. Most people recognise his piano playing nature. Some don’t mind, some are irked by it. I subscribe to the idea that a film should be given its meaning by what is unfolding in front of the camera. Tarkovsky puts it into words better than I.
(Don’t take this to be some map I think people should follow. I’m elaborating to let my view be better known, not to change minds.)
“I will put it this way: she teaches us with a puppet named Fernando. I’m in high school.”
I think it’s something they teach language teachers to do. My high school French teacher used to bring out a puppet called Claude who would she would punch in the face and have call out for help to demonstrate what to do in an emergency. She was a super conservative prude, but ended up showing us Amelie at the end of our final year. Nowhere near as explicit as Y tu mama, but it was a huge step for her.
Seriously though, I’d recommend Spirit of the Beehive. It might ignite a passion for cinema in some of the students, and that’s always a plus.
Edit: Didn’t see the post you made about convincing her to see it before I made this post. I mean, it’s your money, but it’s a wonderful thing to do if you end up buying it. Great, great film. June’s Criterions will still be there.
“The question is not “Can we remove money from the equation?” Because really, that’s nonsense.”
How can anyone think like this? There’s a colossal difference between using your own money to finance a film and going to studios or investors for cash and letting them influence or change what’s in the film. The second option is abhorrent, and it’s not nonsense to want to get rid of it forever, and it’s been proven in every. other. medium. that money can be removed from the equation. Let Hollywood burn. Let the internet pirate it to death, no one will care in the end.
“Grey – When you have millions of dollars that you are willing to invest in the making of your own film, then we’ll talk.”
But people don’t need millions, and if they ever did, then that sort of art should be subsidised by government, like Russia with Tarkovsky. People may need tens of thousands. So you save, or you mortgage a house, or take out loans, or max out credit cards, or apply for grants. Making art is risky, and if they aren’t prepared to take risks, then they should stay out.
As examples, Satyajit Ray (though I believe he’s hated around here) made great films with next to nothing. Cassavetes’ oeuvre alone is scores more powerful than all the business brokered Hollywood fare combined.
I can assure you of this much: money does not buy better actors. Focussing overly on sets, cinematography and sound will weigh you down as well. Believe it or not, there are people who treat cinema as more than an avenue for a job/career, and in their hands, lighting/sound/design can still be exceptional.
“but the history of cinema is not very full of films like these”
The history of cinema is exactly the problem! The kind of films people enjoy for entertainment will undergo drastic change because the current business model is unsustainable (many projects that lose millions, one extremely profitable project that balances it out, rampant piracy). It’s alright that you enjoy Spielberg, Anderson and DeMille, but if we can debate the value of them, then perhaps we can determine their necessity in our culture. Now, I like to be entertained as much as you do, but neither of us need to pretend that entertainment is more desirable than enlightenment, right?
I feel that government subsidisation does indeed go a long way. So what if it can’t pay for everyone’s ideas? Not everyone’s ideas are good. Is a studio going to pay out for challenging and difficult films? Would LotR have been made if it wasn’t a sure-fire hit? What does that tell us about its inherent value? Governments promoting art may at least give it a chance. As long as it isn’t propaganda, you’ll also get artistic freedom. You say some stories can’t be told on a large budget. Maybe they shouldn’t be told at all. Maybe people should prioritise and understand that there’s stories, and then there’s personal, spiritual, and emotional experiences that can be conveyed through cinema. A whole lot of independent films are terrible, and so are many films made on no budgets or with government grants, sure. That’s not being questioned. I never objected to money being a part of the process, I merely said that this type of Hollywood business deal where the artistry is put into the hands of suits is reprehensible. I believe we’re on the same page with regards to this. Apologies, Wildfire, for I thought you had resigned to letting the businessmen have even a small degree of control.
I don’t look at the budget when I’m deciding what films to watch, so it’s not a matter of preferring low budget to big budget. It’s the independent mindset vs the turn-a-profit mindset that helps me differentiate between films. If studios allow complete freedom and don’t expect profit, that’s fine. It’s also very unlikely.
Wow. I’m jealous. I don’t have enough money to spend on posters as well as films, so I only have La Dolce Vita hanging over my bed (yeah, a cliche choice, whatever). Anyone know of the best place to get them, preferably cheap?
“I don’t think anyone making a movie wants to not turn a profit.”
There are people who don’t mind whether their film makes money or not. Not caring about it either way is different to both treating films like consumer products and being so averse to cash that they want it to fail horribly.
“I can say for myself that if every film were some deep spiritual piece that forced me into contemplating the mysteries of the universe, I might get tired after a while.”
I was in this position years back. I thought about how I needed a break from all the heavy European spiritualism, and turned to some modern entertainment. Needless to say, I can’t remember what Hollywood products I watched, probably because I spent the time I was meant to be watching them thinking about Tarkovsky and Bresson. I’m sure the entertainment entertained me well enough, but there was something more meaningful and longer lasting out there. Anyway, I finally discovered Cassavetes and had my holy trinity. Cassavetes is by no means “light,” but in him I found moments and motions that I recognised from my own life. His characters are always laughing, talking, shouting or smiling. Let me cut this tangent short and say that I get so much joy out of watching his films that he’s now my go-to guy when I need a break from the other “deep, spiritual pieces.” I strongly recommend him. Not all art films feel like they’re putting the weight of the world on your shoulders. They don’t set out to please you, but if you know what to look for, they probably will. I like that approach more than being condescended to by exposition, predictability and cliches. My favourite films would never make it past the test audiences that Hollywood uses.
“I’m also hesitant that art should be put in the hands of the government. As long as the arts are a privatized institution (mainly), we will be able to have a cinema that reflects a wide variety of political ideas.”
I don’t think art should be put in the hands of the government, but if you want to criticise them, I think it’s fair for them to not want to fund your film. Raise the cash some other way. You can’t deny that wonderful things have come out of no-strings-attached government funding.
“Almost every film that any major studio puts out will eventually turn a small profit at least. Maybe not at the box office, but on DVD, cable rights, rentals, etc etc, they’ll recoup their money. Those studios also have massive back catalogues that they can sell again and again on DVD or Blu-Ray. This is why I doubt that studios will collapse in the face of internet piracy.”
Simply not true. Wildfire talks about the game industry, which earns “more than music, films etc. combined.” Now, while that’s not true either, it is worth more than the film industry, but a huge percentage of games (I tried to find concrete figures but we’re talking way upwards of 50%) fail. 93% of new properties fail as well. A lot of films that don’t do well in theatres don’t do well on DVD either. (If no one wanted to see them the first time, why would they want to own a copy?) Studios only tend to make 50% of the overall box office take. Internet piracy works against the whole industry, not just theatrical releases. What’s to stop someone from downloading the DVD rip when the DVD is released? They do have TV to fall back on, but that’s being transformed by the internet too. I personally think Fox will be the first to fall. Good riddance!
World of Warcraft, as you’ll know, is an outlier. No other game generates anywhere near as much. 2012 is possible for a takeover, but I’m still fairly certain that it hasn’t surpassed the DVD industry alone, at least not in America. Still, 2012 isn’t now, and sales are down from last year.
What conference was it that you attended by the way, GDC?
“Maybe to shift gears – what is your favorite Bresson? I can’t decide between “A Man Escaped” and “Mouchette””
I don’t think I have a favourite. It’s like having to choose between children. (And I would choose the donkey-looking one.)
Herzog’s Nosferatu. It has more depth, more wonder, more to work with, including the ravishing Isabella Adjani. That said, Murnau’s original is also a masterpiece. Preferring Soderbergh’s Solaris seems like blasphemy to me, so I will pretend that post was never made.
“but the world is both happy and sad, and just because a film shows the happy side doesn’t mean it isn’t realistic?”
But Capra does show the happy and the sad. Take “It’s a Wonderful Life,” where Bailey is faced with burdens and loss throughout his life. He explodes at his daughter’s teacher and yells at his kids. He alternates between despair and a love for life. But Capra shows us that these are the emotions and experiences that mould a man. Bailey finds himself to be the richest man in the room because he understands this, not because of money or social status.
Now, I won’t pretend that Capra wasn’t an idealist. He showed an America that may have never existed (to paraphrase a critic whose name I’ve forgotten) on the surface, but he understood the true nature of man. That’s real enough. Frankly, if all people see in Capra’s films is mawkish sentimentality and happy endings, they’re watching them wrong.
(If someone could instruct me on how to write in italics/bold/etc. that’d be great!)
Edit: Ooo! Bold is asterix word asterix!
“Please be remember Terrence Malick, David Lynch, and Darren Aronofsky all went to AFI. So yes, schools around LA tend to be more studio-based, but if you want to make art films, you certainly can.”
They probably did what they did despite AFI’s teachings, not because of them.
You want to make films, real films? Stay away from film school. Not everyone has cinematic talent, but if you do, don’t squander time learning from the failures of the field. Make your own films, stay honest, fail and learn from that instead. And yes, anything film school can teach you is something that you can learn yourself, and most of it isn’t that important anyway.
“Has film reached it’s height of maturity? Can it only go downhill from here?”
I literally will weep if today’s films are the peak. They’re mainly geared towards adolescents, and I’m not only talking about Terminator Salvation, I’m talking about UP and Milk and Benjamin Button.
Herzog, Welles, and Bergman on Godard about 3 years ago
I have some info, Stevie:
“Bergman: We were supposed to collaborate once, and along with Kurosawa make one love story each for a movie produced by Dino de Laurentiis. I flew down to Rome with my script and spent a lot of time with Fellini while we waited for Kurosawa, who finally couldn’t leave Japan because of his health, so the project went belly-up. Fellini was about to finish Satyricon. I spent a lot of time in the studio and saw him work. I loved him both as a director and as a person, and I still watch his movies, like La Strada and that childhood rememberance – what’s that called again?
The interviewer has also seen the movie several times, but just now the title slips his mind. Bergman laughs delightedly.
Bergman: Great that you’re also a bit senile! That pleases me.
(Later the same day, several hours after the interview, the phone rings. It’s Bergman. ‘AMARCORD!’ he shouts.)”
It’s from a Swedish newspaper. The original interview on their site is gone but I can post the full translation if you like.
Now can someone oblige me and tell me what Welles said about Bresson?
Go to Comment
Should a movie EVER be rated 10/10? about 3 years ago
While 10/10 doesn’t necessarily imply perfection, perfection exists.
Go to Comment
ARE THERE STRONG & REALISTIC FEMALE CHARACTERS OUT THERE AND WHAT ARE FEMALE FILMMAKERS DOING TO ADVANCE THE FEMINIST CAUSE? about 3 years ago
Strong and realistic female characters? I’d like to add/reinforce John Cassavetes. His films have women who are actually women, not female men or hollow objects. That is to say that he recognises the differences and relationships between the genders. Barbara Loden’s Wanda is an excellent female director/strong female example. Women have been tragically underexplored over the course of cinema. I’ll make sure to check out some suggestions here. Thanks, guys.
Go to Comment
Favorite Werner Herzog Film about 3 years ago
Fitzcarraldo. True greatness.
Go to Comment
Great films about artists.. about 3 years ago
Burden of Dreams
Go to Comment
LET'S TALK FRANKLY ABOUT SIR ALFRED about 3 years ago
He said he wanted to play the audience like a piano. I think these very low and shallow aspirations made for technically proficient films that lacked any sense of life. I don’t think they’re complex in the way that they’re transformative or will stay in your head without you trying to recall them, more in the way that unravelling a ball of string is “complex.” It’s laborious, it might be mentally rewarding, and there’s nothing there at the end.
Go to Comment
What IS Cinema? about 3 years ago
“I once heard that the cinema is the seventh art and have always thought of it as such.”
What are the other 6?
Go to Comment
LET'S TALK FRANKLY ABOUT SIR ALFRED about 3 years ago
“Trust the art, never the artist.”
I agree with this, but Hitchcock is pretty straightforward here. I know that I personally couldn’t learn anything from Hitchcock’s characters or films as they’re too far removed from my life and experiences. That layer of artifice pervades every facet in my eyes. The editing which you mention – the rhythmic choice of shots, their positioning – all that is an extension of his technical prowess. Is Rear Window, as an example, a subversive commentary on the role of the director as Hitchcock sees it? Could be, but I can’t muster up anything more than an “A-ha!” in response. Most people recognise his piano playing nature. Some don’t mind, some are irked by it. I subscribe to the idea that a film should be given its meaning by what is unfolding in front of the camera. Tarkovsky puts it into words better than I.
(Don’t take this to be some map I think people should follow. I’m elaborating to let my view be better known, not to change minds.)
Go to Comment
Masterpieces By Mediocre Directors about 3 years ago
Definitely agree with Roscoe here:
PT Anderson’s There Will Be Blood
It really surprised me after his other films.
Go to Comment
Masterpieces By Mediocre Directors about 3 years ago
“Magnolia is a great film, alot of awards, which even though are not a guarantee they kind of give you an idea.”
‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ won the oscar for best film. If film quality is objective (and I agree to an extent), what’s the metric?
Go to Comment
Patterns in Filmmakers/ Creative Minds about 3 years ago
I don’t think it’s too much love that breaks up a marriage. (Unless we’re watching Love Streams)
I’d say a pursuit of knowledge and a love for life is a common thread. As for what makes them different, yes, personal life.
Go to Comment
Highschool Friendly Spanish Films? about 3 years ago
Definitely Y tu mama tambien. People are just joking about the sex and stuff. Highschoolers will love it to bits.
Go to Comment
Highschool Friendly Spanish Films? about 3 years ago
“I will put it this way: she teaches us with a puppet named Fernando. I’m in high school.”
I think it’s something they teach language teachers to do. My high school French teacher used to bring out a puppet called Claude who would she would punch in the face and have call out for help to demonstrate what to do in an emergency. She was a super conservative prude, but ended up showing us Amelie at the end of our final year. Nowhere near as explicit as Y tu mama, but it was a huge step for her.
Seriously though, I’d recommend Spirit of the Beehive. It might ignite a passion for cinema in some of the students, and that’s always a plus.
Edit: Didn’t see the post you made about convincing her to see it before I made this post. I mean, it’s your money, but it’s a wonderful thing to do if you end up buying it. Great, great film. June’s Criterions will still be there.
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
I don’t think anyone who films in black and white will be “left behind.” Same with filming on film.
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
“The question is not “Can we remove money from the equation?” Because really, that’s nonsense.”
How can anyone think like this? There’s a colossal difference between using your own money to finance a film and going to studios or investors for cash and letting them influence or change what’s in the film. The second option is abhorrent, and it’s not nonsense to want to get rid of it forever, and it’s been proven in every. other. medium. that money can be removed from the equation. Let Hollywood burn. Let the internet pirate it to death, no one will care in the end.
Go to Comment
200 YEARS FROM NOW.... about 3 years ago
2001 was made before 1984, and listing Pulp Fiction is a slap in the face to the works in the OP, as well as several hundred other 1994 films.
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
“Grey – When you have millions of dollars that you are willing to invest in the making of your own film, then we’ll talk.”
But people don’t need millions, and if they ever did, then that sort of art should be subsidised by government, like Russia with Tarkovsky. People may need tens of thousands. So you save, or you mortgage a house, or take out loans, or max out credit cards, or apply for grants. Making art is risky, and if they aren’t prepared to take risks, then they should stay out.
As examples, Satyajit Ray (though I believe he’s hated around here) made great films with next to nothing. Cassavetes’ oeuvre alone is scores more powerful than all the business brokered Hollywood fare combined.
I can assure you of this much: money does not buy better actors. Focussing overly on sets, cinematography and sound will weigh you down as well. Believe it or not, there are people who treat cinema as more than an avenue for a job/career, and in their hands, lighting/sound/design can still be exceptional.
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
“but the history of cinema is not very full of films like these”
The history of cinema is exactly the problem! The kind of films people enjoy for entertainment will undergo drastic change because the current business model is unsustainable (many projects that lose millions, one extremely profitable project that balances it out, rampant piracy). It’s alright that you enjoy Spielberg, Anderson and DeMille, but if we can debate the value of them, then perhaps we can determine their necessity in our culture. Now, I like to be entertained as much as you do, but neither of us need to pretend that entertainment is more desirable than enlightenment, right?
I feel that government subsidisation does indeed go a long way. So what if it can’t pay for everyone’s ideas? Not everyone’s ideas are good. Is a studio going to pay out for challenging and difficult films? Would LotR have been made if it wasn’t a sure-fire hit? What does that tell us about its inherent value? Governments promoting art may at least give it a chance. As long as it isn’t propaganda, you’ll also get artistic freedom. You say some stories can’t be told on a large budget. Maybe they shouldn’t be told at all. Maybe people should prioritise and understand that there’s stories, and then there’s personal, spiritual, and emotional experiences that can be conveyed through cinema. A whole lot of independent films are terrible, and so are many films made on no budgets or with government grants, sure. That’s not being questioned. I never objected to money being a part of the process, I merely said that this type of Hollywood business deal where the artistry is put into the hands of suits is reprehensible. I believe we’re on the same page with regards to this. Apologies, Wildfire, for I thought you had resigned to letting the businessmen have even a small degree of control.
I don’t look at the budget when I’m deciding what films to watch, so it’s not a matter of preferring low budget to big budget. It’s the independent mindset vs the turn-a-profit mindset that helps me differentiate between films. If studios allow complete freedom and don’t expect profit, that’s fine. It’s also very unlikely.
Go to Comment
Poster collectors about 3 years ago
Wow. I’m jealous. I don’t have enough money to spend on posters as well as films, so I only have La Dolce Vita hanging over my bed (yeah, a cliche choice, whatever). Anyone know of the best place to get them, preferably cheap?
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
“I don’t think anyone making a movie wants to not turn a profit.”
There are people who don’t mind whether their film makes money or not. Not caring about it either way is different to both treating films like consumer products and being so averse to cash that they want it to fail horribly.
“I can say for myself that if every film were some deep spiritual piece that forced me into contemplating the mysteries of the universe, I might get tired after a while.”
I was in this position years back. I thought about how I needed a break from all the heavy European spiritualism, and turned to some modern entertainment. Needless to say, I can’t remember what Hollywood products I watched, probably because I spent the time I was meant to be watching them thinking about Tarkovsky and Bresson. I’m sure the entertainment entertained me well enough, but there was something more meaningful and longer lasting out there. Anyway, I finally discovered Cassavetes and had my holy trinity. Cassavetes is by no means “light,” but in him I found moments and motions that I recognised from my own life. His characters are always laughing, talking, shouting or smiling. Let me cut this tangent short and say that I get so much joy out of watching his films that he’s now my go-to guy when I need a break from the other “deep, spiritual pieces.” I strongly recommend him. Not all art films feel like they’re putting the weight of the world on your shoulders. They don’t set out to please you, but if you know what to look for, they probably will. I like that approach more than being condescended to by exposition, predictability and cliches. My favourite films would never make it past the test audiences that Hollywood uses.
“I’m also hesitant that art should be put in the hands of the government. As long as the arts are a privatized institution (mainly), we will be able to have a cinema that reflects a wide variety of political ideas.”
I don’t think art should be put in the hands of the government, but if you want to criticise them, I think it’s fair for them to not want to fund your film. Raise the cash some other way. You can’t deny that wonderful things have come out of no-strings-attached government funding.
“Almost every film that any major studio puts out will eventually turn a small profit at least. Maybe not at the box office, but on DVD, cable rights, rentals, etc etc, they’ll recoup their money. Those studios also have massive back catalogues that they can sell again and again on DVD or Blu-Ray. This is why I doubt that studios will collapse in the face of internet piracy.”
Simply not true. Wildfire talks about the game industry, which earns “more than music, films etc. combined.” Now, while that’s not true either, it is worth more than the film industry, but a huge percentage of games (I tried to find concrete figures but we’re talking way upwards of 50%) fail. 93% of new properties fail as well. A lot of films that don’t do well in theatres don’t do well on DVD either. (If no one wanted to see them the first time, why would they want to own a copy?) Studios only tend to make 50% of the overall box office take. Internet piracy works against the whole industry, not just theatrical releases. What’s to stop someone from downloading the DVD rip when the DVD is released? They do have TV to fall back on, but that’s being transformed by the internet too. I personally think Fox will be the first to fall. Good riddance!
Go to Comment
Husbands about 3 years ago
Yup, great film. It’s a crime that there hasn’t been a worldwide DVD release.
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
World of Warcraft, as you’ll know, is an outlier. No other game generates anywhere near as much. 2012 is possible for a takeover, but I’m still fairly certain that it hasn’t surpassed the DVD industry alone, at least not in America. Still, 2012 isn’t now, and sales are down from last year.
What conference was it that you attended by the way, GDC?
“Maybe to shift gears – what is your favorite Bresson? I can’t decide between “A Man Escaped” and “Mouchette””
I don’t think I have a favourite. It’s like having to choose between children. (And I would choose the donkey-looking one.)
Go to Comment
Who Was/Is The Most Beautiful Film Actor Ever? about 3 years ago
Alain Delon. He’d turn me gay if I was a hundred years older.
Go to Comment
Any remakes that you prefer to their originals and if so why? about 3 years ago
Herzog’s Nosferatu. It has more depth, more wonder, more to work with, including the ravishing Isabella Adjani. That said, Murnau’s original is also a masterpiece. Preferring Soderbergh’s Solaris seems like blasphemy to me, so I will pretend that post was never made.
Go to Comment
Capra: Does a good film need realism? Are his films too feel good? Or are his films great? Both? about 3 years ago
“but the world is both happy and sad, and just because a film shows the happy side doesn’t mean it isn’t realistic?”
But Capra does show the happy and the sad. Take “It’s a Wonderful Life,” where Bailey is faced with burdens and loss throughout his life. He explodes at his daughter’s teacher and yells at his kids. He alternates between despair and a love for life. But Capra shows us that these are the emotions and experiences that mould a man. Bailey finds himself to be the richest man in the room because he understands this, not because of money or social status.
Now, I won’t pretend that Capra wasn’t an idealist. He showed an America that may have never existed (to paraphrase a critic whose name I’ve forgotten) on the surface, but he understood the true nature of man. That’s real enough. Frankly, if all people see in Capra’s films is mawkish sentimentality and happy endings, they’re watching them wrong.
(If someone could instruct me on how to write in italics/bold/etc. that’d be great!)
Edit: Ooo! Bold is asterix word asterix!
Go to Comment
Capra: Does a good film need realism? Are his films too feel good? Or are his films great? Both? about 3 years ago
Yeah. Wow. It’s those comics that did me in.
Go to Comment
Film School - Effect on you as a filmmaker about 3 years ago
“Please be remember Terrence Malick, David Lynch, and Darren Aronofsky all went to AFI. So yes, schools around LA tend to be more studio-based, but if you want to make art films, you certainly can.”
They probably did what they did despite AFI’s teachings, not because of them.
You want to make films, real films? Stay away from film school. Not everyone has cinematic talent, but if you do, don’t squander time learning from the failures of the field. Make your own films, stay honest, fail and learn from that instead. And yes, anything film school can teach you is something that you can learn yourself, and most of it isn’t that important anyway.
Go to Comment
Problems and issues with the Film industry about 3 years ago
Problem #1
It’s an industry.
“Has film reached it’s height of maturity? Can it only go downhill from here?”
I literally will weep if today’s films are the peak. They’re mainly geared towards adolescents, and I’m not only talking about Terminator Salvation, I’m talking about UP and Milk and Benjamin Button.
Go to Comment
Terrance Mallicks Influence on Carlos Reygada's Silent Light about 3 years ago
“irregardless”
Redundant
Go to Comment
About Spilberg. Is he a cinematic artist or a businessman looking to score a 'few' bucks. Film thorists...UNITE. almost 3 years ago
“I think it takes great skill and artistry to make a film like Jaws as well as Schindler’s List.”
Great technical skill, perhaps. Completing a film is a feat in and of itself. Artistry? No.
Go to Comment