Does current Hollywood formula really work that well?

[Laurence Maher]

Yet again,

Not say'n they're all bad. They're not. The truth is, even though Hollywood makes mostly bad movies, the worlds best movies undoubtedly come from the same place. No machine on earth other than Hollywood could put out Die Hard. No machine on earth other than Hollywood could put out The Matrix. Yes, american cinema is the best in the world, I think followed by cheesy but often well shot and original oriental cinema (early John Woo was a barrel of monkeys, too bad they gave him MI: 2).

Please, everyone, stop stroking the French, especially if you're French. Who could really compare visual/audio quality with Hollywood. No one. That said . . . . .

Best 80's movies were better than best 90's. Case closed. (LOLOLOL)

Actually, a few have popped up in the last so many years. Matrix awesome, Fight Club awesome, Identity really cool. Memento. Lord of Rings pretty darn good.

OH, JOHN, OH, JOHN!!!!!

Don't get me started about the gymnist chick in Jurrasic Park II! (LOLOLOLOOLOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL)

Perhaps the worst Spielberg Scene EVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!
So bad, it was good, you know what I mean.

There's that point in a movie where a film just falls off the face of even the bad, and then it actually becomes good becasue it's soooooo much fun to watch. (Well, or you get out stress via tears).

[Keith Loh]

Hahahaha you had to remind me of the gymnast girl fighting the raptors... hahaha

There was a good review somewhere about JPII where they predicted in III that Goldblum would have adopted an Asian boy who would defeat the raptors with superior soccer dribbling skills.

[John Hudson]

All I want from my movies are for them to be taken it seriously; as in PLAUSIBLE.

I know the following scenarios aren't real:

Star Wars
The Magical Ark of the Covenant
Superman
Killer Shark chasing boat
Mutating Thing in the Artic
Dinosaurs running around terrorizing

But if they did how would it go down? Thats what I want. Lets pretend for a second "What if........."


What gets me is when this suspension of disbelief is violated with things like a 13 year old gymnast beating down the Velociraptor and Superman actually thinking Margo Kidder is attractive

(okay Im kidding on that one; well not on the unattractive comment)

[Michael Gibbons]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson : All I want from my movies are for them to be taken it seriously; as in PLAUSIBLE.



What gets me is when this suspension of disbelief is violated with things like a 13 year old gymnast beating down the Velociraptor and Superman actually thinking Margo Kidder is attractive

(okay Im kidding on that one; well not on the unattractive comment) -->>>

RE: Margot Kidder
Not only unattractive, but unattractive in a sleazy, late 70's, disco refugee sort of way. I haven't seen the movie in like 10 years and I can still hear the "can you read my mind" part, Uggh!

At least they didn't do a nude scene.

Michael

[Laurence Maher]

LOLOL,

Ya, man. I so hear ya guys. The first rule of thumb (in my opinion) is to NOT . . . VIOLATE . . . YOUR UNIVERSE. Dude, you can set up any universe you want. You can make it a cheesy universe, you can make it serious. What you're allowed to get away with the entire film is all about the first 10 minutes. That's why we're okay with True Lies being cheesy, because it was set up that way. We know Harry Renquist is the basically a James Bond Parody. The script is going to have a lot of action, but it's going to be tounge and cheek. We see it coming from the get go, so we accept it. But Aliens is not a parody. It was set up from the get go as something that was supposed to taken seriously. So if Ripley by the end of the movie starts slinging cheesy one-liners at the Aliens in the middle of a heated scene, it completely takes you out of the action. That's also why Newt didn't start swinging around on the pipes above and kicking the aliens through walls, and she was not able to effectively karate-kick bad guys like Burke, who were 5 times her size.

IMHO,

That is the MAIN problem with a bad script. Universe violation. This is also what makes most sequels so bad. What filmmakers don't understand is that when you make a sequel, you have to follow a rule that you don't have to follow as with a "First Episode" movie. From frame one, the audience is in THE SAME UNIVERSE AS THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL FILM. The same characters will act the same ways given certain similar circumstances. It's okay if they have changed some, but you can't make Martin Riggs, a world-class bad ass from Lethal Weapon I, consider get his ass kicked in by some out of shape half-baked crime organization boss at the end of Lethal III just because you've run out of tough characters that can now be formitable opponents. Of course, it was wonderful that they had Riggs down on all fours pretending to be dog so he won't get attacked by a giant rotweiler, becasue, see, they had to show he was still crazy and . . .

. . . no wait, that was stupid too.

[John Hudson]

Michael Gibbons

LMAO when I read the 'Can you read my mind' line!

[Joe Carney]

I have to agree with Luis Caffesse
opinon on this. Most of the films that people are refering to in this discussion are neither art, not especially good films. Just escapist entertainment, nothing more.

If you want to get your blood boiling and really discuss independent film, try this link

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/
Then come back and talk here.....

Ray Carney is the premier authority on Cassevetes and other American Independent film makers. He will pis# you off and attack all your cherished beliefs about what constitutes the difference between great film and drek.

(He is not any relation to me btw).

You will find that the main problem in hollywood is money itself. How many of us would take chances with hundreds of million dollars of someone elses money? Knowing if we fail, we are finished. Our careers over, our reputations ruined. How many business' risk so much for so little chance of gain? That sort of risk and situations can turn even the strongest, most brilliant visionary into a myopic coward.
I don't hate Hollywood, I feel sorry for all of it.
For all that is lost to cretins with deep pockets. For a public that has been brainwashed to accept drivel as good movie making and not caring about the difference. Worse yet, never wanting to care about the difference.


A truly Independent movie has nothing to do with where a film is made, whether inside or outside a studio. Money has nothing to do with it either. If it were based on the above, then George Lucas is the greatest independent film maker of all time (barf... barf) And Speilberg is a modern day Shakespeare (okay, now really barf).

And Lost in Translastion is an independent film if you judge it by it's ideas and how it was made instead of condeming someone because of their DNA. It was honest, it was truly adult, it spoke up to it's audience instead of feeding them all sorts of signs posts. It let you figure out when to laugh, when to get upset.

When to feel anything required you to pay attention instead of being told when and how to think, feel and react (like 99 percent of all films made). That fact that it was a comedy was especially rare.


btw, Ray Carney is one of the most hated people in hollywood. You even mention his name and people clam up and ignore you or get downright hostile.

His is not about getting you to agree with him. He is a teacher at heart and his real goal is to get you to think through what you are doing. Whether you are going to make the next great genre film, the next great character study, or what ever, studying him will raise your film conciense to the next level.
The down side is you start noticing all the lame crap that permeates 99 percent of movies (both big screen, small screnn, low budget,, what ever).

He has especially harsh words for the vast majority of film critics. He (like myself) felt the late Pauline Kael was a true cancer on the film scene.

I encourage those of you reading this to follow the link and start a new discussion after reading as much as you can stomach.

I have the book Cassevettes on Cassevettes. It's one of those books I keep coming back to again and again when I feel I'm losing my way.

Sorry for the rant, but there are too many clueless dilitants wandering the net passing judgement on things they know nothing of.

[Luis Caffesse]

The above post reminded me of an interview I read once with Scorsese about Cassavetes.

I'm sure most of you have heard this story, but if you haven't I think it's worth repeating.

Scorsese had just finished a rough cut of his first studio film "Boxcar Bertha" for producer Roger Corman. The first person he showed the print to was his friend and idol at the time, John Cassavetes. When the movie ended, Cassavetes turned to him and said, "Marty, you've just spent a year of your life making a piece of shit. It's a good movie, but don't get hooked into that stuff."

Cassavetes then told him, "you should only film something that you're dying to make."

That's what urged Scorsese to rewrite and eventually film "Mean Streets."

[Laurence Maher]

Well,

don't know much about carney, but from the glance I took at his web site, he strikes me as someone who I can only KIND OF relate to.

I'm sure he's right that in general MOST Hollywood movies are drivel, but I'm also quite sure that there are some Hollywood movies that this guy hates that makes him . . . in my opinion . . . .a, ummmm . . . well . . .

. . . an idiot.


Few people I've met have the oddasity to think they know enough about filmmaking or life to say these 2 sentences back to back:

"Marty, you've just spent a year of your life making a piece of shit." . . . and . . . "It's a good movie, but . . . ." . . . well, by this point, I know not to listen to him, so the rest of the second sentence doesn't really matter, now does it.

Perhaps Carney has a dual pesonality and doesn't realize it.

Ya, ya, all about "finding in a movie what you as an observer would bring to it". Dude, if you're gonna do that, just hang out at a park and watch people all day. Or go through a stranger's photo album. Or go meditate. Or even just sit in a chair for a period of 4 hours and do absolutely nothing, no TV, no book, silent in a room, nothing, and see what happens in your head. Doing these things will tell you a lot about yourself, your pains and discomforts will come to the forefront, and perhaps too your strengths, and you'll start to get an idea of what you are as a being.

. . . but hell, keep it out of the theater, man. In my opinion, it takes a FAR MORE talented director to take you on a precisely prescribed roller coaster ride than to put a bunch of images in front of you and let you figure out from it what you want. Hell, everything you see is based on who you are as it is. YOU are the only way possible to perceive things. Your ego is a filter of the world as it comes to you. So no matter what I throw at you, you're going to have a twist I can't control.

Art is about control. That's why an olympic gymnist doing a parallel bars routine is more impressive to watch than an uncoordinated college drunk trying to do the same thing. The gymnist toned that routine to perfection, and we as an audience regard what we see in his routine on a very similar level. The college drunk, well, some people will watch him becasue he's funny, some people will get annoyed because they don't like drunks, some will be embarrased for him, and some of us will want to go get drunk and try the same thing because it looks like fun . . . but none of these things were brought about by ART. This is simply our own filters acting upon a not-too life changing experience.

A good martial artist controls his opponent in a fight. A bad martial artist gets his ass kicked in.

A good Christopher Walkin immitator sounds closer to Christopher Walkin than a bad one.

A portrait painter can paint Christopher Walkin better than a bad one.

A great pianist plays cleaner 16th notes than a bad one.

My point is, ART, true art, is the discapline and refinement of something specific, not just a simple-minded collection of crap labeled art. And one of the oldest and truest forms of this is storytelling. Since filmmaking in it's most popular form has manifested itself via storytelling (in my opinion, a very specific craft, with the goal of any 2 audience members experiencing relatively the same journey throughout the yarn being told), guys like Carney don't know where to go. Guys like Carney want direly to do somehting ELSE with film that is not storytelling, yet they want to be uniformally accepted by the masses as a great filmmaker/critic. Unfortuantely, for Carney, storytelling and filmmaking kind of go hand in hand now, and all he has left to do is cry because that's not what he wanted . . . oh, and because he's no good at storytelling, would be my guess (haven't seen any movies he's done).

Any way you look at it, I can tell you this with certainty. If Carney thinks he knows something about storytelling, and also thinks that THE TERMINATOR (the original, not the sequels) is simply the typical watered down Hollywood drivel as opposed to a film that stands above the norm, then Carney is definitely . . . .

. . . . an idiot.


If he's the type I think he is, he can go hang in a bar with the ghost of Andy Warhol and watch re-runs of that 6 hour feature which was nothing but a 6 hour static shot of the Empire State Building, meanwhile . . .

Elvis has LEFT that building.

[Laurence Maher]

P.S.

Anyone who wants to see my definition of an ART HOUSE MOVIE can go to this link and scroll down a little ways.

http://www.almostmovie.com/About%20the%20Movie.htm

[Luis Caffesse]

Laurence,

Just to clarify, if you go back and reread my last post you'll see that it was John Cassavetes, not Ray Carney, that said those things to Scorsese.

I completely agree with your points on art being rooted in craft.
And as far as Ray Carney goes, I haven't read a word of his so I can't really comment. But, given your empassioned reaction, I'm about to go check out that website right now.

By the way, I believe he is strictly a film critic, not a filmmaker.
That alone makes him somewhat suspect in my mind.
(that comment will probably open an entirely different discussion).

-Luis

[Joe Carney]

Laurence...
IF R Carney is an idiot, then the rest of us are single digit iq morons.
You might want to do your homework before you make such statements. Just makes you look foolish, not correct. You disagreed for all the wrong reasons.

You obviously haven't read everything he posted at the site. Or you didn't get a single point he carefully explained.

Like I said, he will upset most folks who read him, until you actually start to pay attention.

>>. . . but hell, keep it out of the theater, man. In my opinion, it takes a FAR MORE talented director to take you on a precisely prescribed roller coaster ride than to put a bunch of images in front of you and let you figure out from it what you want.<<

It takes a production team with a lot of talented people to make that roller coaster ride. The director is almost an afterthought.
The producer is actually more important than the director in those large budget special effects extravaganzas.
Nothing wrong with that roller coaster ride, its just not art, it's well crafted escapist entertaiment.
I mean, I am definitley going to SpiderMan 2. Can't wait.

more importantly though...

If you like being told how to think, what to think, when to think it, how to feel , what to feel, when to feel it, in other words have the director tell you exactly how to behave, even if that director is full of crap and want's nothing more than to treat you like a piece of meat with dollars bills to extract....
go right ahead a be that way. It's your life to waste.

Hollywood is famous for cheapening our emotions. Manufacturing cheap sentimentality in carefully crafted, completely unrealistic,phony situations, all for a quick buck. Think about it. They are a business, nothing more. The have nothing to do with independent movies. Nor do they want to.

R Carney was not advocating just throughing a bunch of images on the screen and expecting you to figure it out. He detests that sort of art house snobbery. (you know, the ones who pretend that because YOU don't get it you aren't with it...and other pathetic excuses). when in realtiy, they really don't know what they are doing.

As far as your definition of Art, what you described was superior craftmenship and technical skills, not art at all.
Succesfull art forgers have superb technical skills, but that doesn't make them artist by any means.
Sometimes draftsmen can draw humans better than some of the masters, but their drawings lack life and precense.
People who remix others music barely qualify as superior technicians, not artists. (don't bother flaming me, I'll just ignore it).

Art is not about being beautiful, ugly, hip, color coordinated or any of the other popular misconceptions.
It's about discovery. It's about watching a film that suddenly gives you insite to your own life (which was what he meant about seeing yourself in some films).
It's about redefining and expanding what we consider 'normal' even if that turns out to be beautiful, ugly, hip and/or color coordinated in spite of ones self.

I'm not condeming genre, scifi or any other type of movies when I ask people to read his posts.
What R Carney is trying to say is be yourself, don't copy others. Don't be afraid to explore and grow. (Among a lot of other things).
Don't settle for the crap hollywood has been shoving down our throats for 100 years.

[Luis Caffesse]

Okay, I read some of the things on Carney's site, obviously it would take quite a while to read it all. I will eventually.

But, before saying anything about Carney, I'd like to say something about the discussion going on between Laurence and Joe here.

I feel you may both be going to extremes in your comments.

Art, in my opinion, is definitely rooted in craft. Craft and passion are not mutually exclusive. Joe, I don't see how saying that craft is a part of what makes great art in any way insinuates that it is ONLY craft. No one claimed that, and I dont' think anyone would.

"Succesfull art forgers have superb technical skills, but that doesn't make them artist by any means."

You are absolutely right.
But an artist without craft is nothing.

Give me one example of a 'great artist' who had no knowledge of his craft. I seriously doubt you will find one.

I can appreciate that you two may disagree on what it takes to create 'art.' But I think the truth may lie somewhere in the middle of your opposing views. It is not all or none.

Craft without art is passionless and souless.
Art without craft is random and meaningless.

(in my opinion of course)


"What R Carney is trying to say is be yourself, don't copy others. Don't be afraid to explore and grow."

Again, I haven't read all of Carney's writings so I shouldn't even really comment....but I'm going to anyways. I got the feeling that Carney has also gone to an extreme in his opinions, to the point that he seems a bit blinded. He seems to have a "type" of film in mind, and that seems rather counter to what he is saying.

My point is that some of the filmmakers he seems to pan, in my opinion, ARE actually being themselves, and they are not trying to copy others. It just seems that if Carney doesn't feel their films are saying much of anything, he assumes that they must not be approaching their material honestly, or they are simply pandering. In many cases that is not the case.

I honestly believe there are many filmmakers out there who are 'being themselves,' and are not trying to copy anyone... they are not afraid to explore and grow... and they are truly trying to say something with their work - Yet at the end of the day they may just not make films that we like.

Just because you don't like a film, doesn't mean it is not art.

(i meant that as 'you' in general...not you specifically Joe)

-Luis

[Richard Brennan]

I think we may be tripping over the difference between an “independent” (generic adjective) film and an “Independent Film” (film industry specific jargon).

In industry terms, as Rob has said, an Independent Film is one produced without the financial (or creative, and I use the term loosely) backing of a major Hollywood studio. The Independent Film is then brought to the studio as a finished product for distribution. The key concept here is that no studio dictates the content, direction, or appropriateness of the project and they, the studios, can only decide to distribute or pass. Put another way, from the point of view of a studio executive: if I put up the money it’s a Studio Film; if you put up the money it’s an Independent Film. Most Independent Films are small and low budget, because they can’t get the big financing that the majors can bring to the table. But this is not always the case.

Joseph E. Levine produced The Graduate, The Lion in Winter, and A Bridge Too Far (among many others) independently. He put up the money, arranged the financing, and then sold the distribution rights to a studio. Francis Ford Coppola has produced films independently through Zoetrope (although some have also been done in conjunction with a studio). And of course, George Lucas made enough money after Empire Strikes Back to produce independently. Certainly these heavy hitters are the exception – most Independent Films are relatively small affairs – but the point is that the industry term refers to who puts up the dough, nothing more.

It’s already been pointed out that some of these films don’t look very “independent” (adjective). Fair enough; each person may have their own interior “independence meter” and judge films accordingly. Just realize that you may have to explain to some industry types that you are assessing the attributes of the work; not the lineage of its financing.

Carry on.

// Ric

[John Hudson]

Wow. This thread took a right turn! Thats okay, I love this kind of talk.

Some really passionate takes on the topic on hand here. Now we're talking. I have not yet read into Dr. Carneys site but have bookmarked it and will begin exploring. I did read the following link:

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/carncult/emotions.shtml

And I can tell I am in for a ride with this character. What intrigues me about this particular 'article/interview' is his assumption of manufactured emotions. He actually says:

"They represent postures, stances, and attitudes that make us feel good about ourselves. Even as we torture ourselves by casting ourselves in this endless, draining struggle, these emotions flatter us. They inflate our importance. We struggle so we can feel we are getting ahead. We keep up with the Joneses so we can feel superior to them. Even as it hurts them, people love to create self-justifying emotional dramas this way."

What the haitis is he talking about? I disagree. I'm feeling choked up inside at the end of Titanic because I can relate emotionally. Im upset cause I know what its like to love and in losing my love would kill me. Nothing more or less.

I can see the sides of the last 3 posters and there is a peice of my opinion in each one; with an emphasis on Laurence Maher's general take.

I think Art is subjective; one mans Monet is anothers 'Velvet Elvis' and we cannot even sit here and decide what we think is Art and worthy of praise. Granted, there are some obvious films that we can say are manufactured and that probally shouldnt be taken seriously but dare we tell the filmaker that? Can we decide this for them?

Does passion really constitute a true artist? Is it possible for an artist to lose that passion and become bored? Would this diminish the artist? Could we even tell the difference of a painting Monet 'poured his soul into' and one in which he churned out out of habit or to kill time?

I feel that the comment 'Art without craft is random and meaningless.' is not exactly right. I used to paint oils long before I took actual lessons and I swear I put as much heart into I could; there was definate passion in my attempts to create art. Was my lack of 'technical skill' any less meaningful?

My instructor (a real artist who taught the masters way; not some college professor) told me she thought I could become a serious artist if I applied myself and had not seen someone with my kind of natural talent in years. I was very raw; very unpolished.

Ive painted oils I thought were utter crap and literally destroyed the canvas in rage and Ive painted oils I swore were crap that people have gasped "You did that?! That is amazing! Can you do that for me?!"

My point is, it was not until after I learned the technical skills (and I have a long way to go in applying myself) and the 'right way to do it' that I became a better painter; controlled and precise; deliberate that it almost makes it less passionate for me. Its because I know the tricks and the art of perception in what the eye sees. A blob of paint here and there suddenly becomes a house in the hills because I know exactly what the 'audience' will percieve it to be. Does this make me a better artist or less of one? Or should I replace that 'house' with a melting clock to really intigue my audience? Am I now a true artist in not following the rules or am I trying to hard to be the avante garde.

Art is about having the technical skills but passion comes from not knowing how to do it for me. Once you learn it the hunger starts to fade. I remember teaching myself guitar and wanting so bad to learn "Stairway to Heaven". At one time I thought it to be such a wonderful piece of music with so many complicated sounding chords and appregios. Then I learned how to play it. Then it was like "Oh." Thats it? Now I cant hear it without thinking "Yeah, yeah, yeah." The fire in knowing how to do it faded fast.

Back on topic (I am ranting hard here). If I was given a hundred million to write and direct a film about the battle of Iwo Jima and It was being produced by a major studio and released at the time of the Iwo Jima anniversary and that the studio was banking on it to be a major freakin performer on Memorial Day weekend YOU CAN BET I WOULD PUT MY HEART AND SOUL INTO EVERY WAKING MOMENT to create the best work I could possibly do. Does this make me a true artist or not a true artist?