No really, I know everyone hates me but I was thinking about stuff.


Recently I've been delving into the movies of the French New Wave and they've really inspired me. These were a generation of film fans tired of the usual **** poured out by current day studios, and used traditional hollywood styles in a twisted, angry new way. They were angry about the state of their country, of its film, its art, attitude, expectations, etc. And they had little money to make films, no big name actors, or anything like that, but they did, and gave us current day cinema because of it.

Now, we've had film movements and great, revolutionary directors since then, but nothing lately thats really taken the world of film by storm. The masters (Scorcese, Cuaron, Jarmusch, Tarantino [ugh, Ill give him props here because he IS a good DIRECTOR]), etc continue to make exciting films that push boundaries. Our generation is still young, but I'm worried. None of my peers seem angry about anything- the most people do is whine about Bush or make criticisms that have been regurgitated and recycled millions of times.

I mean, yeah, our generation is still young, but give a glance through myspace film. The best you get are safe, yet "quirky" "indie gems" with lots of quirky and cooky characters. The rest make gangster movies that have people shooting each other over stylized rock. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, and I'm not "just whining" and not doing (although I'm cameraless now and need to fix that problem first). I'm just...worried. With an entire generation subdued by iPods, cellphones, Myspace layouts and everything else, no one wants to raise hell anymore. We have a terrible state in the U.S. and worldwide- tons of problems. Probably many more than the 60s or 70s- and look what kind of raw, personal, low budget gorilla films came out of that time period.

Anyway, that's just my initial worry. My real point is, all I hear nowadays is "they made an ultra lowbudget film for 1 million dollars". What the hell? Look, I'm not naive. I know certain things cost money. But I know I can tell a story with amateur actors who want to act, with regular natural settings, one camera, a tripod, a few cheap lights, a $120 microphone, a computer, and no permits. We have access to so many cheap resources, yet it still takes half a million to make a "cheap" movie. Yes, I know there are other movements for this type of thing- Kino, Dogme95, etc. But I'm talking about us, who are 16-20 something. Right now. And not just a shakey cam or a Hi-8 gimmick like a Blair Witch Project. I think a lot of us have the ability to make astounding films. Not just movies with "cool looking shots" and it's not biting off more than we can chew. I'm not insulting anyone here, and pretty much everyone on here is on here for this same reason. But while I've seen some very technically proficient stuff, I don't see any heart.

I don't know what I'm aiming at other than next time you sit down to write a script, think about what makes you pissed off, what it feels like to be young, what you hate, what youd die for (maybe you wouldnt die for anything?) and pour every ounce of it into your filmmaking. Then make something that will confuse your parents and even frighten some people. I want to show everyone that groundbreaking movies can be made with nothing but ideas and people.

as sad as it is to say this: people are tired of being angry.

They got tired of the yelling and the shouting, so instead of fixing it, they buried it, hoping it will go away on its own.

People simply don't care anymore.

I know you and I don't get along, but I can't ignore a good point when its made, and you have hit a nail on the head.

People are dispationate, they don't care. They are wrapped up in their own little world and satisfied with that.

the movie 300 really drove that home. Not necessarily the movie itself, but I researched it before and afterwards.

There was a group of people who believed in something, and they were ready to die for it, facing unsurmountable odds.

I think another problem is, is that we are told to have our own opinions, but as soon as we do and its not your opinion, your shot down for it. how ironic that we claim to be a mulit-minded society and yet despise any thoughts contrary to ours.

Good thoughts Larry.

quote:

I think another problem is, is that we are told to have our own opinions, but as soon as we do and its not your opinion, your shot down for it. how ironic that we claim to be a mulit-minded society and yet despise any thoughts contrary to ours.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me. For all that people want to claim to need "constructive criticism" they sure don't accept it. Remember when Fuc*in Fascist! got torn up by Ben Winter and his goons because he criticized (although constructively, and in my opinion truthfully) "The Lifeguard." It probably happens here just as much as anywhere else, sadly. It plays a large part in why I don't even bother to review films here anymore.

I actually completely understand what you're saying Larry, but I have no idea how to fix it. Do you? Can you make that film you're talking about? Does anyone know what to do?

quote:

Originally posted by hsteinbrick:

quote:

I think another problem is, is that we are told to have our own opinions, but as soon as we do and its not your opinion, your shot down for it. how ironic that we claim to be a mulit-minded society and yet despise any thoughts contrary to ours.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me. For all that people want to claim to need "constructive criticism" they sure don't accept it. Remember when Fuc*in Fascist! got torn up by Ben Winter and his goons because he criticized (although constructively, and in my opinion truthfully) "The Lifeguard." It probably happens here just as much as anywhere else, sadly. It plays a large part in why I don't even bother to review films here anymore.

And what does this particular situation or even exemple has to do with film making being less relevant or creative than it was 40-50 years ago?

What I can understand of the original post is that there would be a lack of unifying element, would it be an ennemie or a social situation, that would encourage people to make intelligent cinema.
Or at least something of that sort.

I think people that have been making relevent cinema for their time were always a minority. Let it be new-wave or neo-realism.

But Larry, I think you've answered your own question (or wish) in your own post. YOU seem to be angry about the situation you are describing. Write a movie about it, and then shot it. Think or character that live the life and adopt the mentality you are describing, that would be interresting (maybe).

I don't know about cinema in general, or people in general, but if we all find the thing that we are interrested in, we can make movie about it, and it will be relevant in the end.

My writing is strange and my sentences looks like they were wrinten by a 7 years old? Well, english ain't my first language.

And someone is gonna tell me how to change my god damn nickname that happen to be my name.

I request anonymity on my internet!

I'm not trying to be a critic of anyone here or be hurtful towards anyone. And yes, I've been trying to get this idea out of my head for a while now- serious writer's block. Maybe a **** excuse, but I'm trying dammit. But even today I've been going over thoughts, shots, characters and what I want to do in my head. I haven't shot a major project in almost two years due to a lack of camera, so in the meantime Ive been acting in stuff, writing in other mediums, and engrossing myself in studying cinema. I'm not telling people what they should do, I'm just trying to get us all on the same page I guess. Not even a unifying theme besides passion.

I want to see films about people's lives, our lives. I want to see movies that go nuts and are messy and amateur and raw I guess. Seems like every generation has these kinds of films that come from pure pain and joy, but with the invention of digital cameras and tricks and computers everyone thinks they need to bedazzle their friends with totally kick ass shots. It's admirable technical stuff and I know I can't achieve a lot of that stuff, but I'm just saying, why not focus on something more human and real. I feel like it's getting buried deep down inside of all of the flashiness and being subdued.

I'll follow the discussion, but I can't say I understand pretty well.

quote:

I think another problem is, is that we are told to have our own opinions, but as soon as we do and its not your opinion, your shot down for it.

Part of that would not be shooting down people who believe that every film does not need to be an angry commentary on heavy metaphysical topics and the human condition. Some people just want to "sit back and enjoy the eye-candy" in the words of Benjamin Winters. But there is a whole other realm of filmmaking out there for those who are interested. The raw and deep and passionate side you are reffering to. However, its not for everyone. I wouldn't want it to be.
I rather enjoy the obscurity of some films. If everyone had seen The Holy Mountain it just wouldn't be the same...hehe Kyle knows what Im talking about.

Larry, it's generational. Do you really think that sixteen and seventeen year olds in 1968, had they owned an easy solution to filmmaking, would have made controversial, angst-ridden commentaries? Like Clooney says in Three Kings, "What is the most important thing in life?" They would make "totally kick ass shots" to impress their friends and get the hot girl to go with them to homecoming.

Our generation is young, which is why you need to give it time to mature. Those filmmakers who are a little older and more experienced do tend to make more interesting and inspiring pieces. Give em time.

However Larry, your post has inspired me. I have been writing a story that is very close to a lot of strong feelings I had during the past couple of years. A friend of mine asked me to describe to him the theme of it; truthfully, I was too embarrassed to tell him. I felt it deserves a more subtle medium such as film, rather than a 30 second pitch. To say it would be to undermine it. With your post, I think I will pick back up on my work on it.

As I have said, not every movie has to be angst-ridden. Each generation always complains about the ignorance, corruption and immaturity of the youngsters. But in the end those youngsters churn out work inspired by their life experiences like their favorite novels or comics as a kid, which is promptly revered by the next generation as intellectually infallible and a milestone in cinematic history.

And about Fascist's comments on the Lifeguard, I can say I was definitely out of line with what I said. Heck, he didn't even criticize anything I did. I didn't write the script. I didn't do the soundtrack. I just don't like him, is all. And please, don't flatter me with "his goons"...I only pretend to have that many friends on Facebook.

only way ive found anything was to allow the unexpected

Whoa, that's a lot of strikedthrough text, scroll down for the good stuff.
Let me hopefully shine some light on your confusion by explaining the natural paradox.
Newton's Third Law of Motion comes into play here. Our generation does have it a little easier, what with all the cellphones, iPods, and internets and what not. Fine, but the opposite is true too. Just as the evolution of man, so have weapons evolved. Spears, arrows, cannons, guns, nukes. Who's to say people's evil tendencies haven't evolved even further than those weapons? Bush and goons , with all their modern resources and power, are completely capable of doing all of the horrible things they have been excused of. Even so, people don't want to think that they've allowed such a bad person to attain such control. I don't believe that Bush has such a current low approval rating because everyone sees as a threat. If that were the case, he'd likely been impeached or worse. Honestly, I think most are in denial and don't even know it. Those who are not are powerless. So Bush is an important subject of rage, yet tricky. Before he was considered to be such a shoddy president, those who opposed him were considered liberal loonies or some other such nonsense. And now that it is a more widespread, popular belief, it has become cliche. What are you to do?
Another Catch-22. Back in the day small filmmakers struggled to...
Sorry, I had to stop that little stream of consciousness. If you think it's going anywhere, I'll finish it.

Let me just say this. With limited technology, low market saturation, and the culture in general, older filmmakers had to fight to get a production made. Today, we have abundant technology, an overly-saturated market, and slightly more accomodating culture we have to compete with to get our films seen. They would've had a million YouTube videos protesting Nazi Germany and our action/inaction with them. We would've had ten great anti-Bush films that a larger majority of people would've agreed with. There are, of course, a few more variables. Utimately, as is life, it is about balance, and I have yet to meet and enlightened man.

elliott (otiose)...

Don't even get me started on how it's all the Republican's fault, or do, I love explaining that. It's funny.

Who are we kidding.
Has there ever been a powerful film.
People watch Requiem For A Dream and then snort a line.
Or An Inconvenient Truth and make jokes about Al's weight.

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

True dat. But, come on man. Haven't you ever seen Requiem for a Dream... on weed?

elliott (otiose)...

quote:

Who are we kidding.
Has there ever been a powerful film.
People watch Requiem For A Dream and then snort a line.
Or An Inconvenient Truth and make jokes about Al's weight.

My Mom said after seeing "Jaws" for the first time she was scared to sit on the toilet for a week. Probably scared of other stuff after seeing "The Exorcist" too. Except now that is done far too intentionally. I heard they didn't think "The Exorcist" was going to be scary enough. And from reading about the production of "Jaws" it is pretty clear to most that that one was an accident. ut that was the 70's, and as Grim says, the weed?

Larry makes a great point and I agree that we're long overdue for a new movement. And I think the most important thing is to keep working. No matter what just keep creating, don't get too caught up in being academic in your work but at least try to make a statement and have a world view.

And don't let those who have never even tried to make a film hack away at your intentions with their ignorant passive statements about a process they don't understand. That's why I don't apologize for my open comments about wannabe critics and who lack the energy or focus to actually create a single frame. "F*ck the audience, it's their job to catch up."

But most important to me is the idea of helping each other out, and I mean this in the physical sense, it is neither helpful nor valid to consider simple criticism the end of your work day. Yes, we should listen but only to those willing to roll up thier sleeves and help.

It's easy, especially in film school to isolate yourself, thinking your ideas are the only valid approaches but when it comes time to film you need as much help as possible! So you must be approachable and helpfull to those around you because it's a collabritive art and no "movement" has a single director!

"No movement has a single director."

That's the line that sums up my feelings on this issue.

First, yes, this is an excellent topic. It raises interesting issues that I, too, have been pondering about our generation and how it compares to other ones.

But unfortunately, as filmmakers, we can't control the audience. We can't control our generation. We can't control Apple iPods or bad emo music or our parents or our kids or anyone except ourselves. Only ourselves! This means that we could talk ourselves hoarse on message boards, at schools, in our homes, or with each other, but a movement never has a single leader, in any medium.

My point is, it may be a damn shame, but it's completely 100% out of our control. If our generation as a whole decides that we're angry and spiteful, then a movement will follow. But right now, our generation is like a fat man after a feast. We're fat and happy. And that's the way it's going to stay until it changes. If it sounds obvious, that's because it is.

What really hit me about your post, Larry, is the message of heart. Someone said that all the fancy equipment was making it easy to be stylistic without substance. True! And it shows - those films won't go anywhere. The ones with heart will. That problem will solve itself - but only we can infuse heart in our own films. I'm writing a script right now that I really want to give some more of my own personal FEELINGS to now.

Keep in mind, as a side note, that all that technology has done is increase the availability of film to the people. That's not a bad thing - but you're obviously going to get more bad films. It's simple numbers. It doesn't mean that the number of good filmmakers has decreased, just that the market is now flooded by anyone who wants to make a film. Notice that painting as a medium hasn't had a really big movement in a loooong time, for the same reason (and more).

Ultimately, we can't do anything about the sloth of our generation. What we can do is make our own films better, and maybe from that will rise a movement of some kind. Let's hope so!

quote:

Originally posted by Kyle Johnson:
only way ive found anything was to allow the unexpected

What an absurd statement. As if you could avoid the unexpected if you wanted to. The unexpected is, by definition, something you cannot expect, and therefore cannot avoid.

You try really hard to make these deep and profound statements, but you're not very good at it, and you're just embarrassing yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
What an absurd statement. As if you could avoid the unexpected if you wanted to. The unexpected is, by definition, something you cannot expect, and therefore cannot avoid.
You try really hard to make these deep and profound statements, but you're not very good at it, and you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm not sure he's trying to be profound, just being a little prankster on a message board. Whatever, Kyle, do what you want. It's kind of funny seeing your posts all the time randomly expressing nothing in particular.

Anyway, thanks for the apology funkbomb. You don't like me, and that's fine, I just don't know why, nor do I care and nor is this the place to discuss it. I don't not like you, but hey you're free to your own opinion, and considering the fact we'll never come face to face, I'm okay with you retreating into the anonyminity of the internet to lambast me...

Now, on this subject matter, I have to say I agree to a certain degree with most of what has been said here, especially by Larry. I too have been of this opinion for quite a while, and found myself completely dissapointed in where it got me. The path I took began with me being a cynical realist, after which I became a speculative romantic after watching some new wave films, after that, as I finished my 100 page screenplay, I was, as author James Dodson would say, Opti the Mystic. I was very excited about where my newfound knowledge and demeanor could take me. After which my hopes and dreams were quitely choked after realizing how ridiculous modern-day films have become. Not only Hollywood crap, everyone with half a brain realizes it, but this "garage band" demeanor that has developed and festered in the new, "world is flat" society. I hate the fact that anyone can make a stupid movie of themselves karate chopping a chicken in a *****house, and suddenly all my friends send me 8,000 links and I realize that it's just degrading the medium. Indie (check out my Jarmusch post(s) if you hate this word too) cinema is completely devoid of ideas, and though I've seen 2 films that really touched me this year in The Science of Sleep and Half Nelson, everything else, aside from maybe CoM of the Departed has been dispicable. I was just watching A Clockwork Orange today, and that, I believe, is the archetype of film. I don't really want to explain why, but Stanley Kubrick was *the* master. Flat out. We have no more Kubricks, folks, and I seriously doubt there will be anyone within 25,800,972 miles of his work ever. That's the sad realization. The way filmmaking has developed to this point will make these garage band films the format of the future, and we can only hope that if we make a film, like the ones Larry and most eveyrone else describes (one with heart), it will be discovered about 100 years from now when the low budget crap flicks of grandma farting in a jar and feeding it to the dog who burps in mommy's face go out of style after this whole "internet" fad dies down...

Am I the only one who doesn't feel like film is going down the toilet? I'm really not too concerned. There have always been bad movies, but there are plenty of talented artists working today. I don't know about you but I saw quite a few films this year that's given me confidence about the future. Are we in a cultural decline? Perhaps. Probably not as bad as it seems. You guys talk about the "iPod generation" as if society being flooded with stupid drones is something new. And what's the need for a new "movement?" Why do we need to focus on our anger in order to make good films? Just make good films, with or without the revolution.
Fascist, you're right, there are no more Kubricks. That's because Kubrick is dead. It's our turn. (Plus 2001 wasn't even that great. C'mon guys, it relied way too much on "cool shots")
Sorry if I sound like I'm attacking you guys but some of you just sound like nostalgic whiners.