'Old Fashioned' Film Making

[alexwhitmer]

starting with "What do THE PEOPLE want?" usually doesn't produce the best stories.

Rummaging around on screenwriter forums for years now, this is a perennial pursuit. There is no shortage of writers trying to guess what the next big 'what Hollywood wants' success will be, and then write accordingly. Not because they love it, but because it's 'economically viable'.

This is a rampant mindset in writers. And yes, it makes for some dull reading.

a

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Wesley, where is it written that a popular film must be watered down and the small-appeal film is elevated to high art?

Nowhere, that's not the point I was making.

You can make a film that is amazingly popular and is good art, and has good stories.

I'm simply saying that MASS APPEAL should not be the primary driving force behind art, it should be the desire to create, and the desire to tell stories that are important to you.

And that I would happily trade mass appeal that quickly fades, for a smaller enduring fanbase, that considers the work deeply important.

What I'm arguing for here is a movie (I try not to call them films anymore) that when shown to a diverse audience will move them the same way so they laugh in the same places and get angry in the same places and cry in the same places. This is what I mean by Universality.

And I'm not arguing against the niche movies. They have... well, their niche. I also think they will be the new model for making movies. What I'm concerned about is that they make it harder to create a movie that binds all audiences. They splinter us as a world into tribes, while giving everyone what they (think) they want.

And I don't necessarily think that's a bad things. I mean most movies are niche movies, they always have been. Regardless of how many people love Westerns, it's always going to be a niche market, regardless of how well "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" does.

I just think that people should focus on good storytelling, and telling stories that are valuable to them, and if they do that, and they get good at it, the audience will find their way to them.

You don't take a western and throw everything and the kitchen sink into it to try to appeal to everyone, you get a mess, and a film that not even Western fans appreciate anymore (Like Wild, Wild, West for instance). It took the show, and it tried to push the film into every territory so everyone liked it.

Oh it's a Western, but it's also Sci-Fi, and it's also a Comedy, and it's also a Buddy Cop movie, and it's also an action-flick, and it's this and this and this and this. Until you had a product that did well, and plenty of people liked, but that was relatively quickly forgotten.

And it's because they tried to appeal to everyone on a lot of things involving the movie, rather than first and foremost trying to tell a good story.

Telling a good story, that you enjoy, that serves some purpose for what you want to communicate, should be your primary goal, all other goals, transcendence, universality, mass-appeal, should all be secondary concerns at best.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Rummaging around on screenwriter forums for years now, this is a perennial pursuit. There is no shortage of writers trying to guess what the next big 'what Hollywood wants' success will be, and then write accordingly. Not because they love it, but because it's 'economically viable'.

This is a rampant mindset in writers. And yes, it makes for some dull reading.

a

Exactly, while the people that go with what THEY want themselves, end up being the next big thing.

Blomkamp wanted to make a sci-fi film that he enjoyed, District 9 was a labor of love for him, and it ended up being a smash hit and nominated for a bucket of Oscars. He wasn't trying to pick up on the hottest, latest thing, and he DEFINITELY wasn't trying to appeal to the most people (Throwing in fingernails being torn off, black vomit, exploding pigs, etc. into the movie doesn't really bring in the elderly and pre-teens).

Making an R-Rated sci-fi allegory about race relations in Africa is not something you'd think about and go, "Yes, the mass market will LOVE this", but it worked. It worked because it was a good story, that the creator thought was important, it definitely was not a film by committee.

 

[Tim Hole]

Nothing has changed. Non-linear storytelling is FAR from new. The staple method of writing a thriller is all about twists, hooks, red herrings, reversals, time locks. And there as always is a fair few thrillers around, or mixed genre films.

More people are going to art galleries and museums than ever before. The internet has assisted greatly in opening people eyes.

Films and storytelling has no changed. There is evolution of style, yes.

I love non-linear narratives. I like the writer to come at me from the side so I don't expect it.

David, I remember doing a deep analysis of 21grams when it came out and if I remember correctly I thought it was non-linear the first time I watched it, however technically if you watch it, again it is entirely linear. However the multiple threads give the appearance of a non-linear narrative. I will have to watch it again to remember though what happens when. I love Amores Perros, pity about Babel though.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Concerning the film literacy of moviegoers, not sure what position to take. If I look at box office numbers, I see fairly simple stories piled high with FX. Complex character-driven stories with a multitude of emotions and flaws and a rocky arc do indeed require a very different engagement of the mind over pop corn entertainment -linear or not. A film such as 'A Beautiful Mind' will never see the kind of numbers Avatar has. Never

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/technology/07leonhardt.html

Don't focus on theaters, that's only half the box-office, think about video sales, that's where half the audience watches films.

Read the article I posted, people value films based on their merit, and people RENT movies based on their merit.

People go to the theaters sometimes for a 3D ride, for fun, amusement, but that doesn't necessarily mean those are the same films that really stick with people.

Looks at films that have persevered throughout the ages. The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, It's a Wonderful Life, Star Wars, Jaws, etc.

Are there effects in those films? Absolutely, but those also have great stories that reverberate with people. It's like J.J. Abrams said during his TED speech, there was a thousand Jaws clones, we don't remember any of them, and it's because everyone was ripping off the shark, and no one was ripping off the poignant family drama.

It's the GOOD STORY that survives, everything else, no matter how big it was on opening day, gets pushed to the wayside with time.

 

[Elsie N]

I'm simply saying that MASS APPEAL should not be the primary driving force behind art, it should be the desire to create, and the desire to tell stories that are important to you.

And that I would happily trade mass appeal that quickly fades, for a smaller enduring fanbase, that considers the work deeply important.

You are confusing MASS APPEAL with universality.

I mean most movies are niche movies, they always have been. Regardless of how many people love Westerns, it's always going to be a niche market, regardless of how well "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" does.

I just think that people should focus on good storytelling, and telling stories that are valuable to them, and if they do that, and they get good at it, the audience will find their way to them.

You don't take a western and throw everything and the kitchen sink into it to try to appeal to everyone, you get a mess, and a film that not even Western fans appreciate anymore (Like Wild, Wild, West for instance). It took the show, and it tried to push the film into every territory so everyone liked it.

Oh it's a Western, but it's also Sci-Fi, and it's also a Comedy, and it's also a Buddy Cop movie, and it's also an action-flick, and it's this and this and this and this. Until you had a product that did well, and plenty of people liked, but that was relatively quickly forgotten.

And it's because they tried to appeal to everyone on a lot of things involving the movie, rather than first and foremost trying to tell a good story.

You are confusing genre with niche.

Telling a good story, that you enjoy, that serves some purpose for what you want to communicate, should be your primary goal, all other goals, transcendence, universality, mass-appeal, should all be secondary concerns at best.

Here we will never find common ground. I believe the storyteller and the audience are partners. And while I don't believe you are required to tell them what they want to hear or even respond to, I do believe you owe them a story that is valuable to them.

 

[Steve Das]

It's like J.J. Abrams said during his TED speech, there was a thousand Jaws clones, we don't remember any of them, and it's because everyone was ripping off the shark, and no one was ripping off the poignant family drama.

It's the GOOD STORY that survives, everything else, no matter how big it was on opening day, gets pushed to the wayside with time.

Saw JJ Abrams Ted speech..and he seems way off. Of course Jaws is
about a giant shark and ET is about an alien. Those are not family
dramas. What they have is an element of suspense and adventure
that the clones do not. People remember the girl getting attacked at
the start of Jaws and the story about the Indianapolis sinking. No one
remembers the family..except JJ..remember he's kinda a sentimentalist
as Forever Young and Regarding Henry were 2 of his first scripts.
Watch those 2 movies and you can judge for yourself...
And he must have been all of 21 when he wrote those 20 years ago.

Correct about a good story..but what is a good story ? The only real
GOOD story I can think of is The Wizard of OZ and Treasure of the Sierra
Madre and The Bible.

All movies are pretty much all the same story..it's just
that the good movies are better executed and slightly spiced up
versions of the same story...so they seem frash to us..even if they're not.

 

[J. P. Sendall]

Why does everyone automatically assume that the latest generation is "stupid"? You'd think that if the latest generation is able to keep up with all of these non-linear stories, that you're having trouble with, than that obviously doesn't mean they are all that "stupid".

I don't think anybody said they were stupid just that levels of education (and I mean a broad horizon in learning, being well read for example) have fallen badly. That is indefensible.

A story with universal appeal is getting harder and harder to create.

But perhaps that's a natural thing. We are paddling against the current really hard without realising the waterfall is moments away. The universal theme's will always be there but finding a way to dress them is the difficult part. But I have a feeling the tools for defining those themes are closer than we think and relevant to the times we live in.

This thread is beginning to remind me of the films I started to watch in my early teens that really changed the way I looked at things even though I didn't realise it at the time. They were in the main Fellini, Tarkovsky and Roeg, Powell/Pressburger and later Kieslowski and Kurosawa. What these films gave me was an odd state of mind that I could not always describe but definitely feel. They were distinctively different from everything else I had seen. They were the beginnings, if I may be so bold, of the maturing of my mind. A sense of something beyond only what I could observe. They were an education I wasn't getting anywhere else. All great art gives us that. I can sit a watch a film today and be entertained by it but not get that sense of something else indescribable. There doesn't seem to be much of that around but that may be because it was always in short supply. Video games do not do what I have tried to describe (and I do play quite a bit). Fully submersive 3D holographic games just might though but that's a few years away.

What I find lacking in a lot of young people is the ability to think and to think critically without prejudice. I have a couple of lovely twin nieces who were indoctrinated into a particular way of religious thinking that I found objectionable. When they were about twelve or thirteen they boldly declared that people who did not believe in God were naturally going to fall into bad ways. I simply told them I knew personally of some very kind people who did not believe in god at all and how did they explain that? I wasn't really wanting them to answer, I just wanted them to think. Watching their expression was a joy. Puzzlement, pure puzzlement but I knew that second I had them doubting was enough. I would like more films just to do that, open some doors to really different ways of thinking. Children are definitely not given that chance much at school but creative people within our community can supply that opportunity, mass appeal or not, non-linear or not.

Oh and by the way Roeg was a master of the non-linear and not as some cheap writing trick either. His playing with time and juxtaposing out of sequence scenes indicated something entirely different from the same sequences in chronological order. Roeg's non-linear approach wasn't just a method to trick the audience down a route of thinking so that they could be whacked with a surprise later on.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

You are confusing MASS APPEAL with universality.

That's an important topic.

Universality is really what a movie should seek to focus on, human conflicts, the struggles that we all go through but externally are manifested in different ways in different circunstances.

Mass appeal is the producer nagging the director to cast a caucasian blonde girl so audiences like... :biggrin5:

Also, there are plenty of stories with universal appeal, it all goes back to the Heroes Journey, you see it appear in stories transcending culture, race, age, sex, everything.

I'm not sure all mythical archetypes comes down to the Hero's Journey, but it's definitely an important aspect.

I think the Hero's Journey doesn't hold much appeal for a feminine audience, let's say.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Rummaging around on screenwriter forums for years now, this is a perennial pursuit. There is no shortage of writers trying to guess what the next big 'what Hollywood wants' success will be, and then write accordingly. Not because they love it, but because it's 'economically viable'.

This is a rampant mindset in writers. And yes, it makes for some dull reading.

a

I spoke at length with screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk) when he visited my school and he told me that when he started out, he fit into this mindset, trying to produce scripts with widespread appeal. He found success when he wrote what he knew which resulted in success with HBO and the academy.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

What I find lacking in a lot of young people is the ability to think and to think critically without prejudice. I have a couple of lovely twin nieces who were indoctrinated into a particular way of religious thinking that I found objectionable. When they were about twelve or thirteen they boldly declared that people who did not believe in God were naturally going to fall into bad ways. I simply told them I knew personally of some very kind people who did not believe in god at all and how did they explain that? I wasn't really wanting them to answer, I just wanted them to think. Watching their expression was a joy. Puzzlement, pure puzzlement but I knew that second I had them doubting was enough. I would like more films just to do that, open some doors to really different ways of thinking. Children are definitely not given that chance much at school but creative people within our community can supply that opportunity, mass appeal or not, non-linear or not.

I agree 100%, this example is very true for politics as well. I have spoken with countless peers that had strictly confined themselves to a certain way of thinking and never bothered to even consider the other side. Exposure to alternative ways of thinking was refreshing to them, rather than annoying. Keeping an open mind always fosters personal development.

In regards to media, I feel that it should inform and provide us with perspective but I sometimes feel that the message goes overboard. The theme of indoctrination is very relevant with films today. This past year, there were two major scifi films that featured a political message, Avatar and District 9. While Avatar was very entertaining and tech crammed, the political message crams itself down your throat, gets in the way of the story and tries to force the audience to think a certain way. District 9 in contrast delivers a compelling story that leads to reflection on how mankind treats those who are different. The message is subtle but very relevant. IMO, filmmaking should to some extent reflect reality and what many filmmakers need to realize is that reality is often way more complicated than they may realize.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I don't think anybody said they were stupid just that levels of education (and I mean a broad horizon in learning, being well read for example) have fallen badly. That is indefensible.

How have they "fallen badly"? There simply is no proof for that at all to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502601.html

The current generation has some of the highest test scores of the last half-century.

There is little to no hard evidence of a drop in intelligence, or if any kind of holistic intelligence can be derived from test scores alone, it's all the speculations of a few old guard, who just like the generation before them seem to have nothing better to do except to stand on their law, wave around a cane, and gripe about how much better the "old days" were.

Every generation complains about the next, and the art forms and expressions that they value. A century ago there were people criticizing film as being nothing more than a novelty. Now a century later, there is hardly anyone that will try to make the claim that film isn't an accepted artform, but won't pause for a moment before they decry videogames and the current culture.

You complain about people being "well read", when there were people that complained about BOOKS! Socrates said that writing and reading diminishes your verbal memory. It used to be common that Greeks would be able to repeat entire epics and a novel-length of story, straight from memory. It's because the culture demanded it. Then the culture changed, and people wrote, and read, and many lost that ability to recall that much, but it freed up the memory for other tasks and purposes. We created a new artform, and a new way to communicate.

It's all part of a changing culture, to say that the current culture is losing something by not reading as many books might be true, but what exactly are we gaining? I believe there are huge things to gain from the current culture, mass-collaboration, social networking, and everything that is derived from them are all (overall) GOOD things, and I believe can be very beneficial.

The idea that the current generation are a bunch of functionally illiterate narcissistic who-ha's is wrong, and the same stuff we've been hearing for the last century about every generation.

"Oh these Swingers are so brash, all they care about their fancy suits, and THESE FLAPPERS, Women smoking cigarettes and flailing around like harlots!? For shame".

"Oh these Beatniks, smoking their cloves cigarettes, full of cynicism, and apathy. All they do is smoke their reefer and listen to Jazz, they'll never accomplish anything."

"Oh these Hippies, all they do is smoke their pot and trip out and wallow in escapism, blah blah blah", etc.

It happens with every generation, only now instead of reefer and rock and roll, it's cellphones and facebook that are the demons.

 

[J. P. Sendall]

How have they "fallen badly"? There simply is no proof for that at all to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502601.html

The current generation has some of the highest test scores of the last half-century.

There is little to no hard evidence of a drop in intelligence, or if any kind of holistic intelligence can be derived from test scores alone, it's all the speculations of a few old guard, who just like the generation before them seems to have nothing better to do except to stand on their law, wave around a cane, and gripe about how much better the "old days" were.

I'll shake my stick at you m'lad and NO YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR BALL BACK!

Truly I think you take a comment and use it to mean a whole bunch of things that weren't said. I admire your energy but doubt your reason to argue with what I have said. I think you've pigeonholed me somewhat, something I think you have accused me of doing about young people which incidentally I haven't. My feeling about young people is mostly based on experience here in the UK and it is pretty deplorable and I mainly blame those older, not younger. The education system here is failing rather badly. I meet young people who are intelligent, smart but can't read properly or write. Their knowledge of history is equally bad. This is a very dangerous environment. Some rather nasty ideas can take hold when a younger generation are not given the proper tools to work with.

It's all part of a changing culture, to say that the current culture is losing something by not reading as many books might be true, but what exactly are we gaining?

What are we gaining? Are you really arguing for young people to stop reading? I think it's not just the information that is acquired through reading it's the way the brain receives text and sentence structure that makes understanding something go in deeper than receiving MTV sized chunks of info. Also an older generation might, just might, have something interesting to say or are you going to dismiss that also?

 

[J. P. Sendall]

You complain about people being "well read", when there were people that complained about BOOKS! Socrates said that writing and reading diminishes your verbal memory. It used to be common that Greeks would be able to repeat entire epics and a novel-length of story, straight from memory. It's because the culture demanded it. Then the culture changed, and people wrote, and read, and many lost that ability to recall that much, but it freed up the memory for other tasks and purposes. We created a new artform, and a new way to communicate.

Well, Socrates was kind of right about a lot of things. Not bad for an old bloke. I'm sure it did diminish verbal memory. I think it seems as we progress the sheer amount of information becomes difficult to retain. Thank god for the internet and Google.

Apparently certain Aboriginal tribes in Australia were able to remember the names of say the four thousand people in their tribe AND their relationships to each other. Astounding feats of memory until you realise that the amount of information they have to hold compared to a westernised mind was a great deal less, but more focused and more importantly relevant to survival. Do you feel Wesley, that you could visit Australia, find an old Aboriginal whose been living in the bush all his life and teach him something, not just impart some information? I wouldn't dare.

 

[Elsie N]

find an old Aboriginal whose been living in the bush all his life and teach him something, not just impart some information? I wouldn't dare.

This reminds me of a farmhand my Dad once had... a Mexican national name Jesus (Heysoos). He could read an English newspaper without understanding a word of what he was saying. He could take a piece of baling wire and repair a sweep frog (a thin cultivator plow that bolts onto a shank) as good as a welder with a welding machine. He was uneducated but was a genius at critical thinking.

The newer generations of today are probably very good at test taking and knowledge retention, but may be lacking in critical thinking. Life for the earlier generations probably required more critical thinking just to get by.

Of course, when I was one of the newer generations, I knew 10 times more than my Dad. As I got older, he got smarter until eventually we were equally smart.:laugh:

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

No, totally not, I think there is room enough to read, and to be a digital junkie, they don't have to be mutual exclusive.

It's just, people derided reading as a bad thing, but enough time has gone past, that now reading is a good thing. It's like it used to be seen as a lazy activity, holding thoughts in paper and stone, instead of in your brain where the REAL thinkers keep their stuff.

It's just, this generation created Wikipedia, the largest compendium of human knowledge ever organized. In 9 years, Wikipedia has made a better encyclopedia than Britannica has in 300. In 5 years YouTubers produce more video in a single year, than NBC has in their entire archives. Bloggers have broke some of the biggest stories that the mainstream media ignored, and have some of the worlds best investigative reporters in their ranks.

I don't know, I don't really feel like i've lost reading comprehension skills by texting a lot, or social networking with my friends, and with e-readers, and books becoming more digital, and integrated into the technology, people won't have to choose between using the computer and reading so much.

If anything I think that, just like with music, the current technology could create a revolution in reading, and what kind of books are possible.

And I wasn't replying necessarily only to you, there just seems to be this narrative in culture that is simply accepted, "Kids are dumb, technology is rotting our brains, the current generation is the worst and they are all a bunch of instant gratification junkies, etc."

I just had gripe with a lot of the "functionally illiterate" comments in this thread.

Over at Indy Mogul, we cater to young filmmakers, and I have worked with some truly fantastic kids. I've worked with them giving them scriptwriting pointers, and breaking down story elements, and kids now-a-days are aces. I've read scripts produced by 14 year olds that match or exceed stuff I read in my University-level scriptwriting program I was in.

I work with kids all of the time, that love movies, love writing, and are the exact opposite of all of the "Dumbest Generation" BS that I keep on hearing hyped in the media. The Kids are all right, and if anything this upcoming generation is fantastic, and I can't wait to see the astounding things they do with filmmaking, and the world at large.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Do you feel Wesley, that you could visit Australia, find an old Aboriginal whose been living in the bush all his life and teach him something, not just impart some information? I wouldn't dare.

Teach him something as opposed to just imparting information?

Sure, absolutely, I am sure there would be something I had personal experience with that someone like that wouldn't have had as much, if any, experience with.

I could teach him how to operate a camera, I could teach him how to operate a computer, there is a lot of technical information I could impart given enough time, the mind is amazingly plastic.

 

[alexwhitmer]

I devoted a few chunks of my someday book to audience perception and participation. In any given theater on any given day you may likely have a 50 point spread in IQs. This on top of all the external influences that form our reason.

What one viewer may interpret as interesting and entertaining, another my find it predictable and adding nothing to the story. Still others may be offended, bored, inspired, clueless, or fully engaged.

The use of double entendre will essentially make two films in one. For some, Matrix was a way cool FX ride, while for others it was a masterful analysis of religion - or what some will argue is what the film is really about, the film they wanted to make and the story they wanted to tell - and they found a way to do it that would also have a mass appeal. I call this the pyramid scheme of film; the chosen few at the top get the whole film, a smattering of souls in the middle who more or less get it, but really came for the entertainment, and then the mass of ticket buyers that more or less pay for the film. The ones who are clueless about the second film running just below the surface, and shoveling pop corn into their mouths as great feats of FX unfold before their eyes. Lots of tickets, lots of pop corn - so that others may enjoy!

I think good film making recognizes this IQ point spread, and employs it to one extent or another.

That said, what each generation brings to film not only as the film maker, but also as the audience, will and always has been in flux. All that aside, I still say story rules, and if you start with that, chances are far better the film will have some success no matter what story structure you use to tell it.

 

[J. P. Sendall]

my University-level scriptwriting program.

Don't get me started on writing courses! :laugh:

I was about to lambast you for not READING my posts properly but you backed off, damn you. Of course this generation can achieve great things but the dangers are equally great. All we need to do is look at the culture that great troubles have arisen from. I once had this idea for a documentary about the Israeli/Palestinian situation (please no posts about that). All I wanted to do was give the children only from each side a chance to give their views about the opposing 'tribe'. Someone actually did this and it was shocking to the soul. Each group of kids completely demonised the others, said dreadful things about what the Israelis/Palestinians did. In that one short sequence it became absolutely clear that the problem could be solved in one generation. Sterilisation or education. I prefer education.

 

[J. P. Sendall]

Sure, absolutely, I am sure there would be something I had personal experience with that someone like that wouldn't have had as much, if any, experience with.

I could teach him how to operate a camera, I could teach him how to operate a computer, there is a lot of technical information I could impart given enough time, the mind is amazingly plastic.

Wesley! You didn't READ my post. I said apart from just imparting information. You really must read more

And why would he want to operate a computer in the middle of the Aussie bush? He already knows where all the five year water frogs are buried.