Are you really a “filmmaker?” Let’s find out…

A few questions for the filmmakers in the audience.  How many films by Jean Luc Godard have you seen?  What about Charlie Chaplin?  D.W. Griffith?  Have you watched Fritz Lang’s “M?”  What about Alfred Hitchcock, quick name me 20 of his films right off the top of your head.  (That’s right, twenty.)  What about Fellini, De Sica, Antonioni, how many of their films have you seen?  What’s your favorite Ingmar Bergman film?  Do you prefer Harold Lloyd’s “Safety Last” or Buster Keaton’s “The General?”  What films were most influenced by Kurosawa’s “Seven Samauri.”  Which is your favorite Ozu film?  Your favorite Truffaut?  Preston Sturges or Frank Capra, and why?  How many times have you watched each Luis Bunuel film, and which is your favorite?  Which is your favorite film about filmmaking: “8 1/2,” “Day For Night,” “Contempt,” “Man With The Movie Camera,” or something else?

I could easily go on and on.  But the problem with most young filmmakers today, they’d have no way to answer any of those questions.  They wouldn’t have a clue.  Sure, ask them about Tarantino, or Scorsese, or David Lynch, or Wes Anderson, and they could recite you passages from their film.  (Sorry to break it to you, “The Royal Tenenbaums” is not the greatest film of all time.)  But unfortunately films did not begin in the 70s.  If anything, the 70s are one of the most overrated period in the history of film, with the lone exception being the films of Woody Allen.

Cinematographers should be paying attention as well.  On “You Are Alone” I worked with a DP who didn’t even know Bergman’s “Persona,” one of the most influential films of all time, especially in terms of the way it was shot.  And even when I lent him the DVD, he still didn’t watch it, which is why I ended up using about 40% B-camera in the final edit.  As least the B-cameramen (there were three in all) had a clue as to what I was talking about.  One of the things I love about Adrian Correia, who shot my film “Friends (with benefits),” is that when I reference: “you know that scene in in ‘The Third Man’ when Orson Wells is standing in the doorway and the cat rubs against his shoe…?” and yes, he knows exactly what scene I’m talking about, and he can replicate the lighting exactly, or at least incorporate elements into the scene we’re shooting.  That’s what you want in a DP.  Someone who knows every beautifully shot scene that came before them.

How anyone can make a film, or even want to make a film, without knowing as much as possible about what came before is a mystery to me?  Just as how anyone can make a comedy without studying Chaplin?  How anyone can make a horror film without knowing every frame of “Psycho?”  (It sure seems as if people are repeating the schlocky horror formula of the 80s over and over again, ad nauseam, without a clue as to what is truly frightening, or compelling, or even entertaining…and yes, I’m talking to you CT filmmakers and people who seem to think “found footage” is a genius idea.)  How in God’s name can anyone film a character with swagger without having marveled at Belmondo in “Breathless?”  How can you film sexy without knowing Bardot?  How can you film a battle scene without having studied Kurosawa?  How can you film heartbreak without studying De Sica?  How can you break the rules without having seen “Citizen Kane?”

You can’t.

(Don’t try to argue, otherwise your answer to the above set of questions becomes, “It’s easy because I’m an idiot.”)

It’s why the majority of films today are so freaking bad.  And why the few filmmakers who are worth anything are such film geeks at heart.  Tarrantino and Lynch are great because their knowledge of film history is vast.  They know what works and what doesn’t because they’ve seen it before.  They know how to break the rules, because they’ve studied the rules.  Even Woody Allen understands that 90% of his humor comes from Chaplin and Groucho Marx, and his technique from Bergman.  He’s admitted as much countless times.  Knowing and understanding film is what makes their films classic.

You don’t even have to like them.  But you need to have seen them.  Not all, but at least a respectable amount, and as you get older you need to keep watching and learning.  I personally detest the films of Stanley Kubrick.  I think he’s made three watchable films.  Two starred Peter Sellers, so I give Sellers all the credit.  The other, “Paths of Glory,” was based upon a story that was so strong, even Kubrick couldn’t fuck it up.  (Yes, I know he’s listed as co-writer, but again, so was Jim Thompson.  So, who really wrote the script?)  But y’know what, I’ve seen all of his films.  I still give him the benefit of the doubt because so many filmmakers I respect in turn respect him.  I’m missing the Kubrick gene.  For me watching “2001” might be like watching paint dry, just as Godard is for a number of my filmmaking friends.  But we all understand the importance.  We all understand the history.  We understand they wrote the rules, broke the rules, crossing dangerous seas in the name of creating a new world of art.

And perhaps you don’t want to make art.  Perhaps you don’t want to make stories that resonate.  Perhaps you don’t want to shoot frames that take your breath away, endings that leave the viewer speechless.  Perhaps you’re content making “movies” (they certainly aren’t films) with your friends that only you and your friends will ever enjoy, or see for that matter.  (Putting your “masterpiece” up on YouTube does not count as distribution.)  If that’s the case, please stop reading my blog.  I’m not writing it for you.

I see so many films that held promise.  A great story.  A great cast.  But it’s wasted by mediocre filmmaking.  It’s ruined by people who have never studied great storytelling, so they haven’t a clue as to what to do with the full-of-potential tale in their proverbial lap.  How many times have I watched a documentary and thought, damn if only this story had been told by Errol Morris, if would have been brilliant.  The story was certainly there, but the filmmaking talent needed to tell it, was no where to be found.  Perhaps if the filmmakers had studied Morris, or Maysles, or Pennebaker, or even Alex Gibney, and took apart their technique to see how a story can and should be told (and there are as many ways to tell a story as there are stories), the film would not have had me scratching my head, wondering how such a captivating tale could end up so damn dull.

We all learn from history.  In politics, sports, hell, in our everyday family life.  Film is no different.  We learn from the successes and mistakes of others.  And for anyone to pick up a camera and try to make a film…for anyone to call themselves a filmmaker…without having studied the classics, what came first, is nothing short of stupid.  (It’s not brave, it’s not taking a risk, unless you consider walking right into the line of enemy fire naked and unarmed brave.) If you haven’t studied some of the filmmakers mentioned in here (and or course there are so many others who made a difference that I have not the time nor space to list), you’re not a filmmaker.  Not even close.  You’re a sad wannabe hack who wouldn’t know a story if it bit you on the ass.  And while that may sound harsh, I’m a bit cranky from watching too many miserable films from people who think they can direct (mumblecore, I’m talking to you).  Go back to square one.  Learn your history.  Understand what made Fellini or Hitchcock or Sturges great.  Only then will you perhaps be able to apply such knowledge to your own work.  Only then will you be able to make a film that is actually worth watching.  Only then will you be deserving of the title “filmmaker.”

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under filmmaking, history of film

4 responses to “Are you really a “filmmaker?” Let’s find out…

  1. OK Gorman, what didn’t you like about “The Killing”? And “A Clockwork Orange”? The latter I only saw for the first time on DVD some months go. I was in high school when it was in theaters and it was rated X so couldn’t go.Just curious, now. I liked “The Killing” a lot but am a major noirmaniac, and it wasn’t much different or worse than a lot of the 50’s noirs.”Clockwork Orange” scared me for years but I’m finally over it. Malcolm McDowell’s beauty and charisma makes the film, even though he’s such a horrible person in it. It’s a chick thing I guess.Nevertheless I only want bad people in my life through films, not in my living room or bank account. I don’t idolize Kubrick but I don’t hate him either. I liked Lolita too, but somehow have never given Dr. Strangelove my full attention all the way through. “2001” was a high school stoner classic that all the kids were talking about but I never got around to it until home video either.It may have bored you, but that Starship sequence at the end has noises in it that make cats go cuckoo, mine was pawing the TV screen during that,his ears swiveling like police car lights.Which did add to the entertainment value considerably. “Barry Lyndon” was a yawn. “Paths of Glory” I’ve seen and would see again;WWI interests me a lot, have read several histories of it.My son when young became quite the film fanatic. Wonder where he got it from. He had the Hitchcock phase, the Kubrick phase, the Welles phase etc. We had a lot of fun discovering these films together! What filmmaker of any era do I find the most irredeemably appalling? Vincent Gallo. Blecch and double-blecch.

    • Jane, just something about Kubrick’s work that doesn’t resonate with me. And regarding “The Killing,” I am a noir freak, and for me that’s a lesser noir. I must be missing the Kubrick gene.

      • Yeah, I’ve read the critics for years about him, they call him a misanthrope and all that. Maybe, except that he felt the compulsion to make films, with people in them,likeable ones or not, I figure a true misanthrope would be making stuff out of popsicle sticks instead or stay in his room playing with his rock collection. One thing I’ve never understood about a lot of film writing is the “who’s an auteur” thing. The auteur theory is a bit passe’ now, but someone wrote once that Joseph L. Mankiewicz was not an auteur and I’ve yet to figure out how a guy who wrote or co-wrote all his own movies can be a non-auteur. You’re an auteur,correct? But it probably doesn’t matter to you whether you’re called that or not. There is a lot of bullshit in film criticism. I have a book on the films of G. W. Pabst with essays by various authors that grew out of the first Pabst critical symposium in 1986 in Vienna, and as you read them the theme emerges, basically it’s “let’s kick the stuffing out of G. W. Pabst”. One wonders why they bothered if they think he’s so lousy.The films in it that get the most praise are the ones that nobody outside of academia can find. Somewhere else I saw a disparaging reference to something called “contentism”–does this mean that you’re not supposed to care about the content and story of a film, you’re instead supposed to focus on the lighting or the camera angles or something? Like, huh? A filmmaker who tells an actual story is doing something bad? Sheesh. Anyway, go enjoy the Replacements. Unless they come to Atlanta, I can’t go but I’ll wish I was there. I only saw them once, late,around ’87-89 and it was a great show. But I had their records and played them incessantly.

  2. Pingback: Ten Realistic Zero-Budget Filmmaking Tips | Guy With Typewriter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s