|
|
Post by armagecko on May 20, 2003 23:32:51 GMT -5
Another post about the movie High Noon brought this to mind: Recently a friend (who is also a filmmaker but not a horror fan) & I had a conversation where he said the thing that annoyed him most about people that made horror movies was the obvious fact that they were uneducated - not in the scholastic sense - but in the school of film. He said, "They never watch anything but horror, so they're like inbreds."
Naturally, I said that his statements were obviously untrue, because several now-famous directors - Spielberg, Scott, Cronenberg - had their hands in many horror films before going on to direct masterpieces in other genres besides horror.
He pointed out however, that all those directors belonged to a different generation of filmmakers. He said he was talking about the "up-and-comers."
So...I was wondering what you all thought about this? Would you say that you are only interested in horror? Have you studied any directors other than horror directors? (Hitchc*ck doesn't count) Do you ever rent films by Godard, Antonioni, Hawks, Lean, or Sayles? Not that I think you're "uneducated" if you don't, I just wonder if there are any other directors, besides those that direct horror, who have influenced any of us? Are we, as horror fans and filmmakers, influenced by any other genres besides our own? Any thoughts?
|
|
Paul
john Q. Director
Posts: 3
|
Post by Paul on May 23, 2003 8:18:32 GMT -5
Well, I certainly like horror films, and I suport the low-budget cuase by buying some of the features the independent community sells.
But, yes, you MUST get into more than horror, and watch and appreciate the other genres.
And horror is about ATMOSPHERE, as much as "visceral thrills". (A hand coming into frame DOES surprise you, but it's relied upon way too much)
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Thanabol on Jun 16, 2003 18:59:58 GMT -5
I agree with armagecko. That's one thing I'd like to change as a filmmaker. Most of stuff is researched from myth, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeaology and whatever else that is fun to research. Some horror movies are just plotless splatterflicks, but there are films out there that are brilliant. Some movies have been labeled under other genres, but I felt they were just as much horror. I think labeling movies under genres actually hinders movies because genre orientated movies must fit into the 'rules' of that genre. If a movie could add elements outside the contemporary ideas of what it should be, there'd be room for better artistic development.
|
|
|
|
Post by B-independent.com on Jun 18, 2003 19:57:36 GMT -5
Absofuckinglutely, your friend is 100% correct.
To be a good horror filmmaker you must first be a good filmmaker....period. If you only study horror chances are good that you'll only get the "beats" and "conventions" of horror down. By studying ALL film you learn about the different beat and rythms and can see new ways to incorporate them into something new.
Heck, if you haven't study Hitch and John Ford, you have no business making movies in the first place. If you can't tell me why John Ford touches his arm in the last shot of THE SEARCHERS, then you better start doing some homework boys, it's those kinds of touches that give your films lasting power.
Now that I think about it, most of my favorite horror titles are from guys known for work OUTSIDE of the horror field.
And I have to agree with what your buddy said about those filmmakers that came out of the 1970's. That was the American New Wave, and those cats knew what it meant to make cinema personal. They studied film, all film, and new the language inside and out.
It's funny, I just watched DePalma's SISTERS today for the first time. What the man did in FEMMES FATALE in terms of editing had it's seeds planted 25 years ago with SISTERS. What an incredible movie....just amazing. You know what works best in that movie? The story! Not a piece of formula anywhere in site.
You study modern horror, you study formula. You study Goddard, you study life.
|
|
|
|
Post by armagecko on Jun 18, 2003 23:22:13 GMT -5
I agree, B. And interestingly enough, the American New Wave was composed of many directors who were most influenced by European cinema. In fact, many were ex-patriated Europeans whose families immigrated to America.
(I just read where Goddard's In Prasie of Love was listed on the 25 Must-Have DVDs by a trade mag.)
And while I am encouraged by the Video-Revolution, it does have its drawbacks. Clearly, having a camera doesn't make one a "moviemaker."
|
|
|
|
Post by B-independent.com on Jun 20, 2003 5:12:30 GMT -5
(I just read where Goddard's In Prasie of Love was listed on the 25 Must-Have DVDs by a trade mag.) That's actually one I'm totally unfamiliar with. Of course I'll look it up, Goddard was always the most exciting of the new wave filmmakers. he always seemed the most artistic in terms of filmic styles. He was always willing to play with the medium. I hear now he's really big on shooting video, but I haven't anything by the man made in the last 20-25 years. The stories go that's he's opinionated he's alienated himself from those that bestow the grants in France. I've always said that just because you can make a movie doesn't mean you should. That doesn't mean "don't go making movies", just don't jump into things too quickly. Study lighting and sound, and someone willing to write. LEARN something about the craft to show me you're serious. Why be a hobbiest when you can start out on a professional career? Oddly enough, my comments on understanding the language of film were echoed today by the likes of Roger Ebert who mentioned the great book UNDERSTANDING MOVIES in his column. This was the very first academic filmbook that I ever owned. It was the basis for Film Appreciation 131 taught by the great Dr. Charles Derry my freshman year. I'd stronly suggest people forego buying those "directing shot by shot" books infavor of this one. |
|
|
|
Post by armagecko on Jun 21, 2003 20:00:19 GMT -5
Understanding Movies should be in every filmmaker's library. An Excellent Text and a wonderful place to gain an understanding of the art of film and movies. Maybe we should start a thread listing books that no filmmaker should be without. This one would definitely make the list.
In Praise of Love, or more precisely, Eloge de L'Amour, was just released to American audiences late last year. The DVD will be available as of July 21, 2003. In the movie, Goddard returns to his familiar existentialism of the 60's and explores themes of memory and regret by using a combination of film and digital video. Goddard fans will love it. Goddard foes will hate it (as usual). But, it is a thought provoking piece by one of the masters of the European art film.
|
|
Toxic_Cinema
Ridley Scott
Toxic Cinema: Disturbing Films For Disturbing People
Posts: 79
|
Post by Toxic_Cinema on Jun 23, 2003 18:57:31 GMT -5
Lets not forget that Mr. Cameron, yes the same one who brought us Titanic (the highest grossing film in history, no?) made Piranha 2. So obviously Cameron isnt as inbred as your friend thought!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by armagecko on Jun 25, 2003 0:52:55 GMT -5
I'm sure Cameron would fall with Speilberg, Scott, and Cronenberg, as part of the older generation of filmmakers. BTW, Titanic's title of largest gross was surpassed last year by Raimi's Spiderman. But, you are correct, Piranha 2 was an early Cameron product. He's come a long way, n'est pas?
|
|
|
|
Post by sightsunseen on Jun 25, 2003 6:36:05 GMT -5
It's a sad statement... but too often true. I, personally, love to be scared or jarred from my seat and have studied every technic there is to doing so... but in the process have come across the largest pile of crap movies imaginable, and I'm sure there are more of these in the horror genre than any other. But... too often people also believe that horror is "easy" to do. We're in our 6th month of pre-production just avoiding the possibility of this happening to us. Attention to detail, makeup, scene tension, and the many different hooks used must be employed. And let's not forget the story. You should be a great storyteller to begin with. We've spent several months working with our writers on editing and even rewriting our screenplay so that it all makes sense and still has the action and tension that we originally going for...many films seem to be just pulled from a drawer and shot to film, ala Zombie 3. But to just say that "all horror" movie makers are inbreds is a sad "uneducated" statement unto itself. I see where your friend is coming from but it's a place full of closed minded people... In "horror" as in life... you have to date some peasants before you find your queen.  |
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Sept 17, 2003 15:08:02 GMT -5
You could also turn it around and look at things from a different angle. There is certainly no shortage of really bad 'horror' movies, many of them are so bad that they make the celebrated Ed Wood look like an auteur, but could it be that there is also a larger market for these films? Nobody would bother releasing such garbage if there wasn’t money to be made from it. In many ways, the horror genre is probably the most forgiving of all markets, the audience seems more than willing to forgo decent plots, acting or special effects as long as the film is relatively entertaining. Apart from the pornographic film industry, there can be no other genre where inexperienced filmmakers can have such a good chance of finding an audience. There is definitely an element of thematic inbreeding in these films, so many of them are created almost solely from recycled elements, the by-the-numbers movies do none of us any favours. But as long as there is a willing audience for these films, there will be a supply of them, there’s no need to aim high if your audience is lowbrow  I don’t like movies with stupid names and lurid video boxes, things like ‘Big Boob Cheeleader Massacre III’ or ‘Nightmare Babysitter Slasher IX’ or whatever, but it’s clear that some people really dig these kinds of titles. Theres no harm in supplying the demand. Doesn't mean the filmmakers are uneducated in the art of cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by DAD on Sept 17, 2003 17:20:10 GMT -5
AJ is absolutely right. This side of porn, Horror films are the only form of film entertainment that doesn't need good acting, good scripts, good directing or good anything as long as it has a few good scares. Guys 13 to 28 (all right, right through to the grave actually) will watch anything with a slasher and a bunch of girls with giggly b**bs running around. If one or two of them also get naked, all the better ... We're hormonal morons and love this crud ... myself included. It's fun to scare and be scared and if there's a few nekid chicks running around it makes it all the better. LOL
But, AJ, I have chastize you for taking a shot at Ed Wood. He happens to be one of my heros. :-) Think about this ... in all the crap he made, he was the first film maker to point a big finger at the US government and say that they were involved in a conspirocy to lie to the public about UFO's. Since he served in the US Army in military intelligence in the South Pacific, kind of makes you wonder if he knew something. Hmmmmm?
David
|
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Sept 17, 2003 17:31:21 GMT -5
I've nothing against Ed Wood, he certainly gets top marks for effort, but overall his films were pretty low-tech. Big on ideas, but the execution could be better  |
|
|
|
Post by armagecko on Nov 17, 2003 3:34:46 GMT -5
My earlier reply which stated that Spiderman had surpassed Titanic as the highest-grossing movie of all time was totally incorrect. What I meant to say was that Spiderman had the biggest opening weekend of any movie. Titanic still reigns supreme as the highest-grossing movie of all time and will continue it's reign for the forseeable future. ($1,835,400,000!!) Sorry TC.
|
|
