movie making on my own

This was a question discussed during an Intro to Film class I took several years ago. We were studying a very general gist of Auteur theory. Auteur theory is basically the idea that the primary person responsible for how the film turns out is the director. It considers the director the “author” of the film. Auteur is French for author—blame the French for this theory.

Having made a few little amateur films, I’ve seen that there are whole parts of movies that have nothing to do with the director, or even with the writer. They come out of the actors. Sure, the director tells the actor what to do, but a good actor gets a general outline of what he’s supposed to be doing and then motors about doing it autonomously. It’s like you tell someone “pace around muttering to yourself”. There’s 101 ways to do that action.

In the Intro to Film class, the teacher told us the person most pissed off by Auteur theory is the screenwriter. After all the screenwriter exists on a project before a director is even appointed. Figure out the fairness in that.

Most people will agree it’s a combination of people who are responsible for what a movie eventually becomes. Movies are, by their nature, a collaborative art. The oddest thing about that class discussion in Intro to Film was the main positions brought up were the director, the writer, and the actors. The guy behind the camera was totally ignored. Camera people do a whole host of their own decisions as far as framing and composition. Or rather the director of photography does this. I’m not sure how much free reign the actual camera guy is given in most films.

Any position in a movie with any kind of free reign, even if very limited, should get a percentage of credit from the audience. Yet audiences tend to only follow around movies by director or by actor. Directors are over rated. Writers and camera personnel are severely under rated.

Also, most people don’t seem to see the unique situation of the making of each individual movie. The amount of creative force given by a certain position changes from project to project. The process is a more living and unique thing per movie than most people seem to realize.

Also, let’s not forget the music. The movie “Lady Hawk” proves how important the soundtrack is. Lady Hawk’s a movie from the 80s with Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Broderick. It’s a great story, with great acting, and great everything else. However, the movie overlaid with this cheesy, horrendous 80s synthetic music. Seriously, the soundtrack makes you when the scene is serious. Even the 80s and whole lot of acid doesn’t explain how awful the soundtrack choices were.

So the question here is: who do you think makes the movie? Who’s the creative force(s) that drive(s) it?

Comments please.

banner picture by TouTouke
stock.xchng

Question of the week: 2/12/09

What is your favorite movie and why?

My favorite (as of this moment): Dog Day Afternoon

This movie is filled with a hundred great things. Two specifically really make the movie. One, the story actually gets in there and explores the characters. Movies rarely do this successfully. Two, Al Pacino’s performance as Sonny is fantastic. It feels odd to say this, considering the current Al Pacino is very mediocre. However, in the 70s he was awesome. The chemistry between him and John Cazale was really something. They could just look at each other, no words, and you, as the audience, still knew exactly what was going on. There are so many little moments in this movie where the look on Al’s face is priceless.

Also, there are little monologues in the movie. Good monologues. Thus, that screenwriting rule you hear all the time, “No monologues”, is bupcas. The rule shouldn’t be “no monologues”. Instead, the rule should be “Don’t be boring”. Thus, no boring, pointless, or otherwise retarded monologues. Dog Day Afternoon follows that logic. The monologues are compelling, well written and draw you in. They help you understand and identity with the characters. They have that quiet, lean-in-and-listen-hard effect on the audience.

I also like the way this movie handles the gay element. It handles it with neutrally. There’s no positive or negative argument. Granted, you do get a bank robber bi-sexual, and a mental ward patient for a gay man. Some people tend to take that as a negative view. I was reading this article. The writer makes this long list of movies to show how cultures of different decades viewed gayness and how until recently gayness is stereotyped with insanity and other perverse behavior. I can see his viewpoint but Dog Day Afternoon shouldn’t be listed. These characters are based on actual people. I don’t know how much stock to put behind the writer of that particular article anyway. For one, he calls Sonny dimwitted. While Sonny isn’t a genius, he’s not stupid. He’s a bit spastic, yes. He might also act a little stupid at times, but anyone would if they had “seven thousand fucking cops all around [them]”. Under that kind of stress most people are morons.

The movie gives a neutral view on gayness because it gives the audience characters who happen to be gay, instead of gay characters. Unlike certain episodes of “Cold Case” where they place gay guys with puppies and flowers and try their darndest to get the audience to say “ahhh, what cute ‘ittle gay characters, how could we ever be mean to them”. You shouldn’t be mean to gay people. The point, here, is that it’s more effective in a movie to simply present the character without a negative or positive message on gayness being shoved down the audience’s throat. It’s a movie about people. It leaves the controversial issues where they should be left—in the background.

Besides the above things, Dog Day Afternoon is also a funny and incredibly witty movie. It’s a bi-polar experience: It has light and fluffy moments, deep introspective moments and one really shockingly horrid moment all roled into one two-hour jaunt. In short, it’s all a movie ever hopes to be. Oh, and Al is really hot in his pretty yellow shirt.

–Jess

Question of the week is designed to help get discussion going with the people who live on the other side of the computer screen from myself. I’d love hear an answer from random people, or even not-so random people. It would make my day.