If a film doesn't have good content, it's not entertaining. You're being influenced by other people's suggestions that explosions make a good movie. I'm talking about the entertainment of one's visual, emotional, and aural faculties.

When you ask someone what movie they think is a "good" movie, chances are they're tell you the name of a dramatic, emotionally powerful film that made them cry. Oftentimes being emotionally moved is entertainment. But movies made with solely that intent are doomed to fail. Films have to be visually appealing, not just sad and depressing.

Call movies what you will, but in today's world, it is about "pleasing your audience for whatever length of time." Don't make a film and then just expect people to like it just because you do. There's a difference between pleasing yourself and pleasing your viewers: one will put food on the table and one won't.

I understand the kind of entertainment you were talking about. I was responding to the other opinions expressed.

Naturally, there's a balance to be played. My point is that there's a tendency to sacrifice original and thought-provoking content to entertain the audience through the easiest formulas and devices. It's a matter of how to convey your ideas to those outside your personal realm of experience. This requires at least as much - and often more - insight and humility as it does to form the ideas in question.

That's enough talk on my end. Back to the drawing board.

quote:

GNHoward said:
The fact is that the headrush of "see(ing) **** explode with a vengeance" in a "kickass movie" can be reproduced through masturbation or good Swiss chocolate. There is no substitute for content.

Not that I care or anything... but I can't help but wonder why you'd say masturbation as opposed to just sex. I do agree on the Swiss chocolate, though.

And Ben... Harris is probably right about you. You are 42!

E.

p.s.: and no, I can't really add anything to what's been said about the actual topic of this thread.

quote:

E.D.M. said:
I can't help but wonder why you'd say masturbation as opposed to just sex.

Jab!

quote:

And Ben... Harris is probably right about you. You are 42!

Yeah, Ben seems just a little too grounded in reality for a 17-year old. When I was 17, I was confident that, when I turned 21, I would be rich and beautiful and admired and regarded as the greatest person to ever exist. Well, I'm 21 now, and I'm still not rich... ah, what delusions.

Geez, I'm out of it for awhile and Harris starts having delusions of grandeur! (name the movie).

This is precisely why I haven't watched a student film on here for a long time. I read the summary and know exactly whats going to happen. I was actually going don that road and thought, "Oh crap, look at all this emotional . . . crap. Better start heading the other way!"
I've been writing a whole lot of comedy lately (its kind of wierd, I write comedy when I'm angry or depressed about something).
And I am a firm believer that a movie should have a positive message, even if it is something simple as "help your friends). Any movie you watch has a message. and you can still see crap blow up. The Matrix for example. The movie had an obvious message and yet we still got to watch kung fu fights and crap blowing up into a million pieces.
Then theres movies like eurotrip that will be forgotten in the next year. whoever makes those kind of movies should die.
Anyways, Ben, if your 17, your my hero. You just gave me hope for our generation.

Yeah! Hear hear! A move needs a heart, as screenwriter's tend to call it. Not something deep and emotional necessarily, just a heart.

And **** exploding.

Yes, and that.

Like this!

Don't forget cleavage.

quote:

or to show other people what is going on in our heads, or to tell us what is wrong with ourselves.

Speak for yourself. I have thoughts and concepts that are significant enough to express on celluloid. Messages are coded into any art, even crappy student films. Their validity depends on the quality of the source

I agree that 'emo' shorts are garbage. The reason why, of course, is not because the subject matter is inherently flawed (although it can be); more that the directors lack enough experience in life to make their dilemmas worth the emotional investment for the viewer. As a result they come off like poorly done comedies - sadness in student films nearly always veers into melodrama.

quote:

Evan Kubota said:
The reason why, of course, is not because the subject matter is inherently flawed (although it can be); more that the directors lack enough experience in life to make their dilemmas worth the emotional investment for the viewer.

Not sure if you were singling out young folks here, but I think this can apply to people of any age. There are 50-year-olds with less life experience than I have, and there are 15-year-olds (I'm sure) with more. Harmony Korine was 20 when he wrote Kids, which is still his best film. It hits a super wide range of emotions, and all the characters register as real people.

So I think you're right, Evan, that most "emo" student films suck because the kids don't know emotional resonance apart from their ugly girlfriends dumping them... but I do think that a lot of younger people have a more well-positioned finger on the pulse of life than do many members of older generations.

And The Cure rocks.

It definitely applies to people of any age, but 45 year-old wage slaves generally don't have enough free time to make short videos

Also, I think the likelihood of having something worthwhile to say does drop off sharply when you're talking about 15-16 year olds like most of those responsible for the dozens of "emo" crapfests on this site.

I think you all make great points and if we could just assimilate it into one coherent piece we would have a great philosophy on film making.

I think the essentials of film making are:
a director who is objective, a screenplay that is compelling, style used to accentuate (not without merit though), and a cast that can fully immerse themselves and reflect the fullness of great characterizations.


Action is there to add emphasis to what is being told. People use action when they cannot direct well so it is better to blow things up than to show how people feel. Then there are people who just show how people feel and don't blow things up.

I don't believe in the classififcation of films and think that is the flaw. Many of comedic films are not funny and those action packed films are terrible, not to mention those independent psychological films which are depressing. I think it is so because the story never comes to an objective nor empowering conclusion. Many of them read like essays. A story must be concrete and must allude to meaningfulness. There should never be actions that do not connect nor reflect a characters mindset.

You can't use one element of filmamking and make a movie. In life and in storytelling all the elements are enacted, that is if the director is objective and can realize this.

Trends take hold when people have nothing creative, nothing original to say. They are merely cashing in on the effect of previous works that made the statement. Many times films will be composed with elements that don't really synergise. And that's a big problem too.

As a writer, I have worked many frustrating years and believe that if you have an original story, all the elements will fall into place and there will never be any force of emotion or action.

My favorite films, memento and fight club, I can watch seriously, and then on another day and I laugh all the way through.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_fusionist,

How can the director possibly be objective? He's creating the story and therefore inherently limited by it.

The story doesn't have to be concrete, and conclusions don't have to be objective (can't be, in fact) or empowering.

The only thing that matters is whether the director is making a valid statement, and whether the statement is compellingly realized. If those two elements are in place, that supersedes everything else.

That's what I meant by objective. How do you make an abstract movie? Would that not go against the two elements you described? Abstract in its defintion is concretized. And how does the conclusion avoid being objective? Does it go against logic? Unless you tell the tale from a first person perspective it should be objective and even then it would normally allude to objective conclusions or if biased is designed for a prepared audience. If you tell a lopsided tale and do not even allude to the truth or your viewer does not have the awareness to distinguish does that not mean the film is irrational and once again goes against your two elements? It is impossible for a movie not to be empowering, because then there would be no damn conclusion. Whether good or bad, or even depressing, the story and conclusion would always allude to something empowering lest it was irrationally concieved (i.e. your emo films). The reason you guys complain is because it does not fulfill this end.

How about this to all you pretentious guys.

You be the artist I'll be the filmmaker.

quote:

Unless you tell the tale from a first person perspective it should be objective and even then it would normally allude to objective conclusions or if biased is designed for a prepared audience.

Nope. It's absolutely impossible to create anything objective, since that would require moving outside of yourself and your own perception.

You can surely make something that's "truthful" in the general sense, but it would not be objective per se. It couldn't be.

The problem with the "emo" "films" has nothing to do with that, though. They are generally awful because:

1. the statement is trite and absolutely rings false

2. the statement is poorly realized both on a technical level and aesthetically

Trite is definately the key word here. "Emo" films try to make an emotional mountain out of a molehill.

Yeah, but The Cure still rocks.