have at it what you will world!
Moviemaker’s Master Class by Laurent Tirard relates a number of interviews done with many modern day directors in the world of feature narrative cinema. I knew that this book would have information of the practical and subjective nature. I took it as my prerogative to be an active reader clearly differentiating the practical common sense duties of a director with those more subjective approaches taken by the individual director giving the advice.
I noted that most talked about a grammar of cinema as it related to shooting a scene and establishing good exposure and composition. Rightly so most noted this material as fundamental and not detracting in anyway from the art of cinema. Much like an athlete it seems that these fundamentals in cinema are the key. It seems to me that it is only by understanding the rules and in some instances the science of cinema that one can work efficiently to create something novel.
It is that which follows the fundamentals, these subjective approaches and the commonalities amongst many of the directors that compose schools of thought about: acting, shooting, scripting, and any other elements that come together to make up what could be called the autuer theory of cinema. Most of the directors were from a more recent period in cinema as such there were many common approaches they had such as treating the script as more of a guide and not becoming locked into what is written on the page in terms of acting and even shooting. I was amazed at how many directors spoke of showing up on set early to figure out the shots for that day. Some liked rehearsal with actors and many did not. Some treated the material on a more conceptual level while others were working from the human story level.
All of the directors seemed a bit awkward trying to verbalize the more specific aspects of why they do what they do and toward what ends they are striving. Cronenberg, Goddard and others all spoke of the process as something that is self explanatory and in many ways self reaffirming. That is to say they realized what they did while they did it and realized how to do it because they were involved in the production. Many admitted that this sense of process and this approach to making a piece of work is not possible to learn in a classroom at a film school. In the world of art where the product serves to justify the artist there must be artful production and so it goes with cinema.
Older more established directors like Scorsese and Allen spoke about the system and the practical realities of producing work. The struggles to create something that is marketable while still being independent and the difficulties of working in a system that is even more so now driven toward profit from high investment blockbusters over smaller more personal films that could still be done to make a profit if the infrastructure was there to support such films.
I continued to find subjective commonalities as I read further into the book. I would say most directors spoke about making a film that they were happy with one where the final results served to satisfy their desires to put that story on celluloid. None of the directors disregarded the audience but most did not treat the appeal to an audience as something they were particularly worried about. I must then ask myself: what does it mean to be self serving as a director? Is this a bad thing or just something that works if you have talent? That is can talent be defined as an artist’s ability to connect with a number of people sufficient to justify his product as something representative of humanity? OR is this just what makes it art? People see it but they do not like it, then is that art without talent or just crap? OR is all art intrinsically crap until it is justified by the appeal of a group an audience?
This book got me going on a number of recent and recurring questions of both personal and philosophical relevance. Stepping outside of the emotional appeal of the subjective artist’s journey I think the place to start is at a more practical root. If I define the problem as such: I want to make a narrative feature movie. What does this mean? It has to have a story. Something has to happen. Even a wayward nihlist’s tale will have something. Keeping vague, this something can be just about anything but since it is preconceived it will be contrived, certain elements of “reality” will be disregarded or simplified time will pass as you wish it to and not as it does and characters will not be whole human beings but archetypes characterizing the roles that serve this something. That is not to say that the something and the resultant characters cannot be complicated. This complication must be coherent to the audience otherwise the piece will become confused and it will fail OR possibly worse be a successful misunderstanding that is ultimately unsatisfying to the director and creator. Why? Because it is not about monetary success (even though it is) it is about communicating an idea, a feeling, a question, once more something. Does this make cinema glorified propaganda? Hell yes. Historically Western theatre traces back to the Greeks to the concept of a ritual whereby the audience would watch something that would move them to catharsis and provide them with peace of mind. Once more this is also contrived and too a point subjective one person’s tragedy might be another’s comedy.
What is significant about cinema being propaganda if it does not spout specific political arguments or beliefs? The unfortunate truth is that the act of being apolitical is a political one. Perhaps we might elucidate a theory about how this notion of how talent relates to audience and success and art. Looking at an audience is more about demographics. It is not difficult to see why a “chick flick” appeals to one spectrum and why a sci-fi action thriller appeals to another spectrum. I use the word spectrum because I realize the overlap in demographics and the overlapping appeal of certain works. Ah different people and I might go so far as to say that everyone gets something unique from a movie. It might be a 99.9% common reaction amongst a group of friends but then to attempt to quantify this sans any sort of scientifically quantifiable data is ridiculous. They may have the mega-Fonzie some time in the future but for now we just have to keep on with this sense of subjective coolness.
Does this inevitable subjectivity of human experience aside from all the demographics then make the propaganda of cinema a moot point and if so does that in turn make talent and art something that is indefinite? I suppose it does. So what makes a director talented a person worthy to be in this book? Consistency of appeal, adherence to obsessions (Lynch’s place holder for ideas I guess), a clear understanding of the fundamentals of cinema, and the employment of all of the above in a patterned way, since humans are creatures of habit, which in a circular way arrives back at appeal. Now you have the autuer the signature look and feel conceptual material (obsessions) and look specific to a director if for no other reason than that is what he likes to do and so far it has been what his audience has liked to see.
1. That’s a Futurama quote if you’re in the know you get a bonofide no prize which is a Marvel Comics Stan Lee joke.