Posts by Larry Martin11

@zhabotinsky
...honestly, you and I are pretty much on the same page about almost everything—I could probably sign off on nearly every single thing you just said. Of course, improvisation comes with a price tag, just like shooting a movie using a "traditional" script, which is exactly why I wrote

But personally, the whole idea of improvising on film is actually really interesting and appealing to me. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to weave more of it into the curriculum for the programs where Beaver and I have already started incorporating scriptless storytelling exercises 🙂

...as I mentioned above. Good improvisation requires a certain level of talent, but I don't see anything wrong with "practicing" that kind of work. However—and this is where I think we might differ—I don't believe an academy education is strictly necessary for it. Don't get me wrong, I’m a total believer in formal education, but I also think a director needs an inherent level of creativity that can be honed at a school, but certainly isn't taught there. To put it bluntly—and maybe this is a cliché—I don't think anyone ever "taught" Leigh, Wenders, or Cassavetes how to improvise their films. They probably experimented with it way more during their training than what happens here at the academy, but as milk so aptly pointed out, they learned the rules specifically so they could break them. You have to start somewhere; someone has to open the door. And it doesn't mean our directors have to follow the exact same path as Americans—I mean, would Godard or Truffaut even exist if they had done everything exactly like the generations before them? A little rebellion is essential in art, and I like to believe that film is an art form 🙂. But if nobody has the guts to be curious or to actually try things... I just don't get it...
...furthermore, answering the question of which of our directors would make a good improviser feels impossible to me. I don't see any reason why they couldn't; the real question is whether they are willing to go on that adventure. You’ll probably say they aren't because it’s financially impossible—but call me naive, but shooting a short film on a digital camera in your own apartment with a group of actor friends isn't impossible or even that expensive. Yet, they still don't do it. And that’s how you practice; that’s how you learn. Education isn't just what you get from an academy. If they won't do it, then my predictions that someone like Svilicic or Nolan could pull it off are completely meaningless. It's the same with actors, too—if there are generations of young actors who realize that improvisation is a legitimate, viable approach and are open to it, then a way will be found wherever there is willpower. If there is a desire for workshops like those based on Boal's theater (which, let's face it, is essentially just good improvisation, right? And here, we don't just have workshops, we actually have entire organizations 🙂), and if people show up to them—if Coachella can occasionally put on a show that attempts to improvise (I heard their latest premiere was heading in that direction, though I haven't caught it yet 🙂)—then it's impossible that there aren't talented young actors capable of delivering solid improvisation on film (it doesn't have to be "total" improvisation like it is with Leigh, as I said before). Besides, it feels a bit rude of me to talk about what is or isn't happening at the academy as if that's the end of the story. An actor is in a profession where you learn for your entire life; they can always choose to specialize in improvisation. Sure, workshops are pricey, and getting a grant to study abroad is tough, but it's not true that everything here is as utterly impossible as everyone constantly claims and uses as an excuse...
...as for why there isn't any willpower left? Honestly, I wish I had an answer for you, but I really don't 🙂

..sorry if I'm coming off a little heated here—it’s definitely not directed at you, truly 🙂 it’s just that your post got me thinking about the things that actually get under my skin...🙂
...I'm going to stop typing while I'm this annoyed 🙂 😳

👍
...Man, I wish I’d phrased it that way 😍 but hey, you have my vote!

...And if I can jump in, I’ll add just one thing: at the very least, a movie should offer some level of hedonistic pleasure—meaning the person watching it actually enjoys themselves. That alone would be something. Even if a film were stripped down to nothing more than pure entertainment, it would at least be fun. However, this whole approach of hoarding totally negates even that, in my opinion. It's no longer about enjoying what you see; it’s just about watching so you can list it later—or, even worse, buying it just so you can own it and add it to a collection. Sadly, there's no escaping this mindset entirely (I mean, if I watch two movies today from two different eras, with two different styles, directors, and sensibilities, how much attention can I really give to either?), but it's a shame we're amplifying that exact behavior

...this thread is basically the perfect case study for how much the values and life dynamics of Americans have shifted. It used to be that we’d discuss The Conversation based on whether it was—well, good or not—focusing on the twists, those unexpected endings, or even the "process" itself. We talked about what else could still catch us off guard in a movie. But now? Now we just list things endlessly. We exhaust ourselves trying to rank one thing over another—because apparently, in every single category, something must come out on top, which implies everything can just be filed away into neat little boxes. And as if that wasn't enough, we all just take it for granted that our categorizations are somehow (!) distinct from one another, even though none of us can actually explain why. We don't have the time to talk about it; we just need to keep listing. We'll obsess over cinematography, direction, the script, or the acting—those "standalone" elements that are easy to compare—but the actual quality of a film's unpredictability, its sense of wonder, requires me to completely redefine my entire way of watching movies. Honestly, that's too much work for three lifetimes...

...I honestly think this is the most depressing thread ever started on this forum. 😢 🙂

...man, there are just getting to be more and more of us here 😍

Jose Miller17 said:well, that’s just Leigh’s modus operandi... I don't think he's ever actually shot a movie using a classic recipe (at least among his major works, not that he hasn't).... from what I recall, they always used to say you should have a rough outline of a plan, and if something pops up, even better... besides, when you look at other art forms (or jobs), only a tiny percentage of people can actually improvise on the fly (when it actually makes sense, obviously)... you know how it goes—learn the rules so you can figure out how to break them...:-)

...true, true...Naked was just one example of how you can make something fantastic through massive amounts of improvisation 😍 but we have to be somewhat realistic here—I mean, Leigh isn't just at the top of British cinema, he's at the top of global cinema; he’s been making films for three decades now, and it would be unrealistic to expect our "young talents" to break the rules with the same level of confidence and freedom (for instance, it's fine if the actors already know each other during filming, rather than meeting for the first time while shooting a scene together 🙂 ) but having the freedom to play with ideas and conventions should be available to everyone every single day, and I don't see why that should be considered "terrible" (since Mr. Rogers is clearly afraid of the same thing) or "forbidden" to anyone; don't get me wrong, some movies don't allow for much improvisation because their best parts rely on the precise alignment of specific details (I can't think of a better example right now than Prestige, though that’s actually a poor example), then there's that type of "technical perfection" that comes partly from planning and partly from improv (Le Fils, for example), but that third option—creative chaos, if you will—is more than welcome in my book, whether it's in the style of Leigh, the chaotic principle of Herzog, or that slippery ground of free improvisation used by folks like Harmony, or even Doyle in his Away with words, where they pile up material and then literally assemble a film from the best scenes; of course, this third method is the most dangerous—I think Babaja explained it quite well in an interview recently, saying how that whole process of hoarding footage erases the actual idea, and that's the problem with digitalization, where everyone is empowered to amass material and "make a movie," and I completely agree with him—but occasionally, when it works, it yields incredibly interesting results, so I can't help but support all three approaches—though you could probably tell that from less than what I've written here 😳

Jose Miller17 said:regardless of how you look at it, the result is what counts in the end....

...I don't know, I try—whenever I can—to value the process itself independently of the results, provided someone attempted to do something "brave"; judging solely on the quality of the final film feels to me like judging a football game strictly by the score—sure, the team that scores more goals is better; winning matters, obviously, but I care about the beautiful play, the courage to take tactical risks, the willingness to show a moment of brilliance... that's why the match between CSKA and Arsenal in the Champions League this season will remain the most interesting thing I've watched, even if it ended in a disappointing 0-0 draw for Arsenal, just as Linklater's...Slacker and Waking Life will always hold a special spot for me as genuine pieces of cinematic art—even if they aren't exactly "blockbusters," and even though I can appreciate the brilliance of Memento despite the fact that I didn't actually enjoy watching it that much...🙂

Jose Miller17 said:...the issue with ABC is that they’ve started mimicking Fox and NBC instead of the other way around...

...in short, you hit the nail on the head.

...let me try to breathe a little more life into this thread, because I’m actually enjoying it...🙂 don't take it personally—I've been picking and choosing which quotes to reply to since I've been away for a bit, and I can't exactly respond to everything (plus, I don't always have anything particularly brilliant to say 😬 )...

northerncrane4 said:Look, here's where the snag happens—you have to write the script exactly that way, solving everything through dialogue, just so the current readers over at the Department will even understand it or approve it. And that's the trap; once they pass it, directors usually decide to strip out all those gritty details, thinking they're doing everyone a favor because, hey, if they hadn't, it wouldn't have passed in the first place. Or they go to the complete opposite extreme, tossing the script entirely and letting the actors improvise for an hour and a half. Honestly, I don't know which is worse.

...this is all pretty fascinating, but what really "triggered" me was that last point—why do you think a movie can't be the result of high-quality, inspired improvisation? Like quietdriver3 mentioned earlier, film is a jazzy medium; in many ways, the final version is just an improvisation based on the core idea. So why shouldn't the actual creation process follow that same logic? Of course, it doesn't have to be the rule—there are people who work with incredibly detailed storyboards, knowing exactly what they want, where, and how, which is great and highly professional (take Ogresta, for example—he's definitely that kind of director)—but abroad, there are phenomenal directors who make movies through improvisation, and we have amazing examples of it. For instance, Leigh's Naked is, if you recall, more or less the result of Thewlis's brilliant improvisational dialogue, and despite that, it’s a masterpiece. And I can't help but mention Julian here 🙂—there's plenty of evidence that giving actors some freedom in certain (or even most) scenes can only improve the quality of a film. Now, the real question is: how good are our actors, and how willing are our directors to actually work with them and prep those scenes? As for the actors, I'm sure there are enough talented people to pull that off—I'm not saying Veljaca should be improvising every scene, obviously, but I seriously doubt Mikic, Kvrgic, or Matula couldn't do it. On the other hand, the issue of how directors interact with their cast is a whole different problem, but we've touched on that before, so I won't reopen the wound unless anyone's interested. Still, the idea of improvisation in film is genuinely appealing to me, and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to include more of it in the curriculum, alongside the "unscripted" study quietdriver3 and I already added 🙂

northerncrane4 said:Maybe it's just my paranoia, but nobody actually benefits from educating the public. Nobody has an interest in making one good series, because then there's a risk the audience might start demanding higher production values. And that creates massive problems, because while there are people who actually know how to do it, they demand to be paid fairly.

...who's talking about what? Me again, diving back into politics 😁. But honestly, the whole issue of public education has its roots right there—in politics. And I don't mean the "campaigning" kind, but rather the policy side—cultural policy. Specifically, here, it boils down to a total lack of vision for public broadcasting. If they actually made a clear decision—say, designating one channel (CBS would be the most logical choice)—to be dedicated solely to cultural and educational content rather than just mindless entertainment, then the quality of the programming would have to rise accordingly. You'd be forced to invest in better production. But as things stand now? The main channel is just a messy soup of mediocre "quasi-cultural" junk and domestic shows that wouldn't even pass muster on a low-budget cable network. There’s really nothing to discuss until we fix that. It's high time we looked at how our neighbors handle this and stopped sweeping any attempt at quality cultural products under the rug. And you're absolutely right—part of the problem is that nobody wants to sink big money into it, but even with less funding, if there were actual ideas, we could produce something significantly better than this current mess. Besides, I highly doubt those overpriced luxury spas are actually cheap, yet they manage to be mind-numbingly dull beyond belief 👎
. ...and as for the public? Unfortunately, people aren't exactly going to start demanding higher production values out of thin air. It seems like the more we consume, the lower the bar for quality gets set. Which isn't even surprising, really—considering how constantly bombarded we are by visual media every single day that we end up watching more and more, yet thinking about it (or actually enjoying it) less and less 👎
.

...enough for now, I keep getting tangled up in these generalities...🙂

Sandra King86 said:The absolute best:
1. Max von Sydow
2. Marlon Brando

...I mean, our Karmela isn't even crazy anymore 😍 😘

...I actually liked this post, so I feel obligated to weigh in a bit 🙂...

Kimberly Turner51 said:Isabelle Huppert

A total beauty and a genius all in one 😍

Kimberly Turner51 said:Franka Potente

...wow, okay! Franka is stunning and incredibly talented—it’s almost a shame that ever since she split with that little German wunderkind, her role choices have gone downhill...

Kimberly Turner51 said:[Mads Mikkelsen (he's mostly just doing stuff in King Arthur, though I've only seen him in Bond)

...this guy is a phenomenal young Danish actor—proof that having a handsome face and actual acting chops can actually go hand in hand :-) In some of his roles (Pusher II, The Celebration, Adams Aebler...), he’d put a lot of those loud-mouthed Hollywood "pretty boys" to shame 👍 Just don't judge him solely based on Bond or Arthur (those aren't even really "roles" :-), check out one of his better films, you won't be disappointed 🙂

Kimberly Turner51 said:Stellan Skarsgård

😍

Kimberly Turner51 said:And of course, a whole bunch of Brits:Alan Rickman, and so on.

...Spall 😍, Thewlis 😍, Carlyle 😍, Broadbent, Rea, even little Mays, McKidd (I know, I know... but I love the guy :-) seeing him pop up always cheers me up), and Ewen 😍 stepping in to defend the honor of the younger generation...

...ugh, I'm done. I won't say any more. 😳

...man, I feel the same way 😍

...I have this vague memory of the movie, kind of like looking through a fog... but seeing this thread actually pushed me to go hunt it down again 🙂

...well, that’s all I’ve got for now—you guys picked the title, I provided the structure, and now we just have to keep this thing breathing 🙂 I promise to bring some actual creativity to the table tomorrow (quietdriver3 is already calling me 🙂), but don't let the momentum die out just yet 🙂

...Listen, folks, I’ve been on my feet since sunrise and I am honestly too wiped out to write much right now—and you all know I’m not the type to just skim over 🙂—so I just wanted to drop in and say hi 😍 🙂. Also, could someone please give this discussion a proper title? I’d love to tuck it away somewhere nice—mostly because it seems northerncrane4 was actually more visionary than my tiny self and saw the future of "our" little thread coming a mile away...🙂 )

northerncrane4 said:Hey Mod, are we moving to a new thread? I’d rather stay ahead of things before the zombies start pounding on my door tomorrow morning.

No way, no way... I’d honestly leave him right here for a little while longer—maybe someone else will stumble upon him by accident. :-) Because let's be real, if I actually move him and give him a serious title, I guarantee you won't see that happening anytime soon. 😉 So, I guess we just sit tight and wait a little longer to see how this all plays out... :-)

northerncrane4 said:I have to disagree here. That’s exactly what they focus on during those first two years at Juilliard—or at least, that was the case back when I was around—and the results are still absolutely nothing. Dialogue is a fundamental part of filmmaking; you don't solve problems by avoiding it, you solve them by actually learning how to use it. But apparently, nobody's doing that.

It’s not really a dialogue issue, if you ask me—it’s more about what’s being said and how it's being delivered. When I watch American films, I always get this nagging impression that directors think they have to spell everything out—or, you know, just scream it at the audience—for it to even count. It’s like they don't trust us to get it. Instead of letting something like a transitional period—or any other nuanced theme—exist as subtle context, they feel the need to hammer it into the conversation. It’s either explicitly stated, or it’s treated like it doesn't exist at all. Is subtlety really that intimidating?
Here’s an example: when you’re watching... The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (which wasn't exactly "fun" to watch, but it definitely got the point across)—it’s basically a movie about an old man that doubles as a massive middle finger to the American healthcare and social welfare systems. And honestly? It works. You don't need someone constantly hitting you over the head with a message or lecturing you about the subtext—everything the guy goes through tells the story for you. When you're actually watching it... Fine Dead GirlsI mean, honestly—it feels like you have to lean out a window and scream every insult in the book, from political extremists to whatever else is trending, just to get people to actually listen to what you're saying. It’s exhausting. And really, could it not all have been handled with a bit more subtlety? :-) Besides, a movie doesn't always have to be built from the ground up through grit and social commentary—why not try approaching it from a higher perspective? Why haven't any of our directors decided to take a page out of the books of Whitman or Hobbes? You could take the essence of a poem, a philosophical theory, or a deep meditation and translate that directly onto the screen. (Pay attention now...) Songs from the Second Floor Or that madman Maddin. 🙂It feels like most of our directors just don't have the drive to actually go for it—and even when they do try, like Matanic, they just don't quite have the knack for it, you know?

northerncrane4 said:Let’s not get too carried away with the romanticism here—Dogme 95 didn't exactly spring from some grand, lofty "vision" to reinvent the wheel. It was born out of necessity because they simply didn't have the budget. The films came first; the Manifesto was really just a way to justify what they had already done while doubling as a bit of a user manual.

It’s partially right: Dogme 95 is an attempt to take whatever you have—or rather, whatever you *don't* have—and use it to do something different. That’s why it’s a manifesto, a call to action, not just some budget spreadsheet. Sure, it serves as a convenient excuse for having zero money, but it's also a way to squeeze the absolute maximum out of those limitations to achieve a "purer" cinematic feel. If that weren't the case, we'd just be looking at technical constraints—you know, handheld cameras, lighting rules, or banning props. But they included substantive rules too—forbidding certain genres, insisting the film be shot "here and now," or the idea that the camera should follow the action rather than lead it. In my opinion, those content-driven rules are actually what make Dogme films interesting. If you want to look at it another way, it's essentially... less-is-more Ideology? Not even close—despite how much people try to pin that label on it—and it definitely isn't some kind of "film ideology." Cost-benefit analysis—it sounds like something you'd hear a corporate consultant drone on about during a mid-day PowerPoint presentation, doesn't it? But when you actually sit down and weigh the pros against the cons, things get messy fast. Is it ever really just simple math? Or are we just trying to justify the decisions we've already made? It’s an analogy, sure—but let’s be real: while directors might have been making similar stuff before, films actually born out of the Manifesto definitely came after its inception. Sure, almost everyone breaks at least one "technical" rule here and there, but they largely stick to the core spirit of it. The emphasis is really on that creative impulse sparked by the Manifesto itself, rather than the financial constraints you keep harping on. Besides, for some directors—take Corneau or even Levring, for instance—leaning into Dogme 95 was actually a way to secure *more* funding, not an attempt to cut costs. They chose to follow the requirements of the Manifesto, not work outside of them, just to get the job done. So, claiming these types of films existed "before" is just plain inaccurate.

northerncrane4 said:What do I know? You've got the Film Academy, you've got the Days—just go see for yourself.

...like I said, I just don't see them. :-)

northerncrane4 said:The whole thing boils down to negative selection.

If that’s really the only issue, then why aren't we seeing any interesting young directors outside of the Juilliard School? I mean—aside from Klukovic, who if I remember correctly wasn't even an Academy student to begin with, and only ever made one film—where is everyone else? Why isn't the RAF overflowing with creative amateur films? It just doesn't seem possible. just So, here’s the issue...

northerncrane4 said:It all comes down to you—how much of a stubborn streak you're willing to lean into.

🙂

"

northerncrane4
Wait, where exactly are you finding Kulenovic to be an example of someone unconventional? 🤣

...it’s more about the subject matter than the actual approach 🙂—I’ll give you that, someone churning out sitcoms for CBS isn't exactly the gold standard for artistic creativity, but the guy constantly markets himself as this "pioneer of a new thematic wave" that supposedly rejects the usual tropes of war, defeat, or social issues; but hey, I'll take the hit here, your critique is fair enough 🙂

northerncrane4 said:But I’m not so sure that film production in other smaller European countries acts as a silent state-run money laundering scheme, either..

...you're absolutely right, it isn't... :-) but because of that, we really need to learn how to emulate the better ones (the British, the Danes...), and figure out how to handle the financial side intelligently; as for the relationship with art itself, that should have been established by now... and look, I know it's that old debate between "what is" and "what ought to be," but beyond that, all I can do is complain and describe the current mess, and honestly, we've moved past that stage several times already...

northerncrane4 said:You're missing the mark again, because "No Man's Land" wasn't some commercial populist comedy; it was more of a marketing phenomenon or perhaps a late echo of success from the local literary scene, and it didn't actually make much at the box office.

...and I accept that criticism without any issue, you're right, but I simply don't have any other examples handy, and this one was just the closest to what I was thinking... I'd love to provide a better one, but there it is 😳 ...

@Sandra Lee6
Well, it’s nice to see that someone is actually watching us build these sandcastles—someone who hasn't even gotten their hands dirty yet. 🙂 Honestly, it’s like people around here can't handle a little bit of praise—as soon as anyone tries to say something nice, everyone just vanishes. They immediately tuck tail and hide. Is it that hard to take a compliment? 😍 Look, instead of sitting there praising them, why don't you just join us? 🙂
...and I just can't seem to catch a break, so I guess I have to keep at it a little longer... :-)

quietdriver3 said:I always find myself thinking back to that Martin Scorsese documentary about film history—you know, the one where he talks about those "smuggler directors" during the peak eras of censorship? Those guys who actually managed to sneak something meaningful past the censors' scissors and the rigid studio system. It’s a shame we don't have anything like that here. Honestly, what we really need is an American equivalent to the Film Academy, or some kind of domestic DOGME movement—something designed specifically to push back against everything we’re currently dealing with.

You know, I hadn’t really looked at it from that angle before, but there’s definitely something to be said here—even if I’m not exactly a huge fan of the FAK crowd. If I had any say in the matter, I’d hate to see our entire film movement turn into nothing more than a forced push for some specific "urban vibe" or whatever. modernist Honestly, that whole concept always felt a bit gimmicky to me—even when I was reading about it in books—but hey, I guess it’s all a matter of taste, right? Still, I have to say, Dogme 95 really blew me away. It wasn't necessarily because the movies themselves were all masterpieces—I mean, there's a huge range of quality in what I've seen—but more because of the sheer audacity of the idea itself. The notion that you can actually make a film like that? That’s what got me. Different. So, let's try to flip the script on the American film industry and see where that gets us—though, honestly, looking around, I don't see a single "frame" capable of pulling it off. For starters, I don't see that concentrated surge of young filmmakers we saw in Denmark—northerncrane4, you’re an insider, so feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here—and even among our own directors, there's zero sense of cohesion that would allow them to actually pull something like that together. I mean, really, if you look at their work, what does Svilicic actually have in common with Matanic? Or what does Matanic share with Hribar? Themes, aesthetics, anything at all? And where is their core generation of actors to actually carry these stories? The Danes, if you watch closely, have an entire generation of incredible actors who act as the backbone for those films. Meanwhile, the grassroots initiatives? Non-existent. So, sure, I can dream and wish all I want, but reality is telling a very different story.

quietdriver3 said:I get it—sometimes there are these inner demons that push you to do things you might not even want to do. But honestly? There’s a certain rush in seeing just how much you're actually capable of pulling off. That’s where I find my real satisfaction. And let’s be real—satisfaction is basically just the more sophisticated cousin of pure fun.

Man, even this is something I’d have to sign against myself. 😉 :-)

quietdriver3 said:You tell a story your own way, because at the end of the day—at least in my book—the whole point of every movie, story, comic, or novel is to create something nobody else has done before. Sure, the plot can be the same, why not? But you have to pose a question to it (because that’s what drives any narrative, right?) that hasn't been asked yet, even if the answer turns out to be something we've seen a hundred times. It’s about having an idea. A reflection of someone else's thought, if necessary, so that when you're watching, you can actually say, "Man, this director was clearly reading Whitman when they made this," instead of, "Ugh, just another formulaic piece made for a festival in San Francisco that'll probably only please the Rector of the Juilliard School."

...I agree with all of that 👍, though I'll honestly admit that sometimes I don't mind a good rip-off if the person behind it actually has a sense for how to borrow—for instance, Lammers' film from the last big festival here (Langer Licht), which is essentially a clever "borrowing" from the Dardenne brothers, but it was handled so beautifully and thoughtfully that I couldn't bring myself to complain. In the end, he managed to leave his own mark on those influences (which goes back to what you were saying earlier :-) ); however, I really can't explain this San Francisco formula syndrome—I don't think the issue is that people *want* to make formulaic films, but rather that they simply don't know how to do anything else. Is it a failure of education? The bureaucratic Academy is constantly under fire, yet it stays stuck in the same loop—and once you remember that Ivanda is running the show, it's pretty obvious where the problem lies :-)) which stifles creativity, or is it just a lack of foundational knowledge from the creators themselves? I don't know. But hey, if I manage to get into the Academy this summer, I'll let you know my impressions—assuming I don't get bureaucratized in the meantime, of course :-) Unfortunately, I'm equally wary of these "pseudo-original" directors: I read about Kulenovic's first film and I can already see him heading down the wrong path—trying to do a half-baked exploitation of "urban culture" and whatever that is supposed to be. We saw this attempt fail miserably with that "24 Hours" omnibus—forcing forced urban dialogue and "underground" themes on us like it's supposed to feel gritty, but it just doesn't land (unlike certain foreign directors—not to bring up my favorite, Refn, 😍 :-)); that’s also what scares me about the potential "American FAK"—so far, the few films produced there have shown themselves to be quite artistic (and that includes things like the scriptwriting for Kulenovic's second film, Tarik, in *Ogrestina's Red Forest*, which was the weakest part of an otherwise deeply considered film because it was pushed way too far);

quietdriver3 said:I'm with you. They should introduce an entrance exam at the Academy where the only way to pass is to write a feature-length screenplay with absolutely no dialogue.

...now that's a great idea :-) although I still think they ought to be analyzing poetry, studying Boal's theater, taking philosophy courses... they need to break out of the mindset that filmmaking is just a technical trade, a routine, or mere craftsmanship...

quietdriver3 said:Just imagine—trying to write a script featuring a single character who doesn't say a word. You have to go that route because, let's face it, they aren't a professional actor, so you bypass as much dialogue as possible 😁 (which then forces you to rethink the entire framing and cinematography, avoiding close-ups and things like that). Now, try doing that while sticking to just two or three interior locations and still stretching it to at least thirty minutes without losing the audience's interest. It’s an incredible exercise. And a grueling one. I really hope you get to see some fruits of that labor at one of the next RAF festivals. 🙂

...well, I certainly hope so. 😍 🙂

northerncrane4 said:Yeah, except the problem here isn't just lacking the theater infrastructure; it's that there aren't enough people in the country willing to watch a movie unless it's a massive blockbuster. Dammit, you'd practically need a fifth of the entire population to show up just to break even.

...correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you looked at the earnings of domestic films across most European nations, a good chunk of them would also be showing losses. But that’s where (good) cultural policy comes in—deciding whether you want to push and subsidize "auteur" cinema as something that holds its own value and niche audience, or not. Sure, commercial populist comedies—the kind that feel like low-brow slapstick—will always exist, and they should, because at the end of the day, they bring in the revenue and serve a much broader crowd than anything destined for a specialized Film Archive. I'll admit, that approach to culture might seem a bit elitist, but I can live with that if the result is films with genuine artistic merit rather than just marketability.

goldentinker9 said:🎉 And just for the grand finale—on June 1st, we’ve got the "Leningrad Cowboys" hitting the stage at the old factory!!!
There’ll be about 20 of them up there, so expect a massive spectacle and some serious chaos!🙂

...are you kidding me?...honestly, all we need now is for them to bring Aki Kaurismäki along too. 😍

Just a few more words and I'm out of here—I promise. :-)
Since this was sent directly to me—well, let's deal with that first...

quietdriver3 said:Look, I have to admit—that whole "soul searching" thing, where you’re basically wrestling with your own demons and the world's bullshit at the same time—can actually be a weirdly fun way to pass the time. (Okay, maybe that’s just a "me" problem?) 😕 But honestly, when you sit down to read or watch the results of your own creative exorcism—as an author—you find this weird sense of peace. It’s like, maybe because life isn't quite hitting those same dark notes right now, the only way to describe that feeling is some kind of "entertainment."

Well, I see how it is... :-) I have to admit, this caught me off guard. There’s a real sense of soul-searching going on here—moments that are absolutely brilliant mixed with some pretty grim stretches. There’s no doubt you get a massive rush when you finally stumble upon *that* specific feeling... but I wouldn't exactly call it "fun." I’d probably reach for one of those heavy, depressing words that nobody actually likes to use, so I’ll just leave that unsaid. 😳 Well, I guess that’s where you and I differ. :-)

quietdriver3 said:To me, the biggest issue with American cinema is this chronic lack of passion. The stories feel so damn grounded and uninspired—and I’m speaking generally here. I’ve always wondered why people who actually have the luck to work on a professional production settle for such mediocre ideas and plain executions. Especially when they know they’re going to spend at least the next year of their lives grinding away at that exact "ordinariness." Are our producers really that terrified of a bold idea?

...hmmm...
There’s definitely something to that—you can really feel it when a movie lacks passion. I’ll admit, watching some of our local films, I’ve occasionally thought how much better everything would be if the director actually put a bit of themselves into the work. But honestly? I don't think the issue is the "ordinariness" of the stories. Personally, I love movies built on simple, everyday tales. I'm drawn to that sense of "groundedness" you mentioned—if I caught your drift there (correct me if I’m wrong)—those straightforward, small, even uncreative plots. But they only work if they're told with a real sense for pacing and detail. That’s what I call a "pure" film—which is probably a pretty rude and inaccurate way to put it, I know—but it requires an immense amount of enthusiasm and passion for the craft. I’m not interested in flashy effects, over-complexity, or "narrative clutter." I want that simplicity—but it only functions if the technical execution is flawless. Sometimes the cinematography alone carries the entire film, right? You need that deep sense of "love" for the ordinary, and frankly, that’s exactly what we’re missing most of the time. Even Svilicic actually surprised me with his attempt to tell something relatively normal in... My bad regarding the kung-fu stuff. It’s got this "unconventional" core concept—but honestly, everything else about the movie is just aggressively ordinary. The problem? The actors didn't exactly buy into it. And let's be real—those kinds of creative "initiatives" are incredibly rare around here in the States. Armin Josh, I missed it, but looking at the thread, it seems like he’s finally thrown in the towel on that whole "little" film thing. It’s a shame—honestly, he was the only one of the younger crowd actually brave enough to kick things off like that.
...but there’s something else about our movies that really bugs me... it’s not just the technical hiccups—it's the fact that we have people capable of decent cinematography (Samanovic, for instance) but nobody who truly hits my personal sweet spot. To me, the biggest issue with American cinema is the flatness; everything feels one-dimensional, totally devoid of symbolism, and stripped of any attempt to say something more than what is explicitly being stated or shown on screen. It’s always as if everything has to be laid out, shouted, or drawn explicitly just to exist. And then you get some younger director—take Matanic, for example—trying to play around with symbolism or attempting to tackle complex themes, but they simply can't manage to create anything beneath the surface level. Neither in the script nor visually—the ideas always remain completely "flat"... I don't know, if you ask me, we should probably send all our directors to spend a semester or two studying philosophy to discover nuance, dilemmas, and actual questions. Maybe then they’d stop viewing film as purely "visual" (that kind where everything has to be physically seen—sorry, I'm too exhausted to find the right word 😳), and start seeing it as a complex medium;

What do you actually need? A room painted blue, a few actors, Adobe After Effects, a decent three-chip digital camera, and an imagination fueled by infinite combinations.

...and here I was thinking I was the naive one 😍 That sounds great in theory, but it isn't quite that simple. Imagination is—and I’ve defended this before—absolutely necessary, but it isn't enough. The best proof is RAF (good grief, I didn't realize you had a film over there too 😍 maybe I've even seen it :-))—all those "auteurs" who think a good idea and a little creativity is enough to make "something good"... most of the time, their films end up being mere sketches, half-baked projects, or scattered pieces that don't fit together. Imagination is certainly something innate that you can learn, but having a beautiful idea and knowing how to communicate it to someone else are two very different things. Amateurism is wonderful because the creators are still having fun 😍, but it takes a massive amount of effort and real knowledge to translate that fun onto film so the audience actually feels it. It doesn't seem accidental to me that so much of our amateur cinema ends up being straight-up trash; it's as if many creators think being "charming," playful, or having that "surface-level wit" will camouflage the fact that they were working with nothing and that the film is no-budget, but for me, that just doesn't cut it;
...low budget, obviously, doesn't have to mean a bad film, nor does it have to be amateurish—since, logically, they're all low budget anyway—nor does it have to be "unprofessional" (I still wonder about Linklater’s Slacker—a cult classic worth $23,000; or look at Radicev’s Ivo, which is, let's say, value for money despite its flaws 👍) —quite the opposite! You just need to know how to "hide" the constraints rather than highlighting them under the guise that making trash is the easiest and most fun way to work...

...ugh, now I've gone off on a tangent again 😵

@northerncrane4
...thanks for destroying what little illusions I had left 👍 oh well, it's fine, it's healthy for me... 🙂

...maybe I’ll just go mess around in Brooklyn for a bit—it feels like it's been way too long since I 😍

...well, look, I'm reading what you wrote and I get 😍, but I just can't seem to "fit" Michael Haneke (Heineken 😉) into this equation. I keep obsessing over that "Here's Johnny!" scene, searching and searching for an equivalent somewhere else—but I find nothing. And it isn't because I think the master brewer 😁 is some kind of craftsman—he isn't (I'll be the first to sign it, even if some of you forum dwellers disagree, that he's an artist 😍)—it's just that I can't shake the feeling that his scripts feel more like scientific studies than actual games :-) We don't talk about this much, and even in those moments where the characters are having fun (like when they play these "little games" with helpless people just because they can), it's as if the director isn't actually enjoying himself. Their "fun" is really just his summary of TV violence and the culture of brutality we're all exposed to daily! You can't really "play" with that and have it be fun; it's just unsettling—or maybe it's just me and I can't imagine anything else :-)) There isn't that witty Johnnyjevski horror vibe where the audience knows they're free from the world the characters inhabit, and the screenwriter knows it too, allowing them to play with the characters for their own amusement—the kind of thing Millius and Coppola allowed themselves with those "ugly as a modern art masterpiece" ideas before they knew what kind of horror was waiting for them during the filming of Apocalypse Now...😍 That's what I'm looking for, but I can't find it anywhere. It's as if a script inspired by Thomas Hobbes has to be written with that same Hobbesian scientific rigor... All I can do is hope that science can be fun too—and, I suppose, it can, but rarely; usually, it gets a bit dry once you spend too much time with it... :-) That seriousness isn't bad—in fact, I love it precisely because it feels "different"—I just can't quite tell how far it actually reaches...

...but anyway, don't mind me too much; I'm a little out of sorts today 🙂 😳 I guess I'll just have to wait until someone drags Haneke to some festival after-party so I can grill him about it a bit... :-)

...but honestly, I'm just incredibly glad that northerncrane4 decided to be a decent conversation partner in my place today 👍 😍 :-)

...so they actually helped her out, how wonderful is that 🙂

@Karen Jackson98/">@@Karen Jackson98
...I'm afraid I might not be much of a help myself, but here's my two cents... keep your eyes and ears peeled for competitions (granted, they're rare, but hey—it's something. I know there was that one recent one that just wrapped up...), copy the details, and send them over to production houses. Be smart about it and take advantage of all those film industry panels at festivals; pull some of those "big shots" aside and ask for advice. If you can handle hanging around Lawrence at the Sundance buffet all day, it won't cost you anything but maybe a cup of coffee 🙂 to grab a drink with him—it doesn't mean he'll hand you a career on a silver platter immediately, but you might at least walk away with advice that's more useful than what we're getting here 😉... unfortunately, formal routes for pitching scripts are pretty much non-existent in America, though maybe things will shift in a few years...

...anyway, just stay persistent 🙂

quietdriver3 said:If you ask me, you have to stay playful to be a great director—I mean, isn't it pretty obvious? The best ones are just people who simply never learned how to stop playing. 😍

Man, I’d sign that in a heartbeat too. 😍 But there’s one guy who just completely ruins my whole concept. 🙂...
I mean, just think about Michael Haneke for a second... he’s easily one of my favorite directors, but honestly? You can tell there isn't even a hint that he was having any fun while making those films. Not once. Never. 🙂 It’s not even about the subject matter—I mean, plenty of other directors make "serious" films while still having a blast behind the camera. I'm pretty sure Alfred Hitchcock was having the time of his life making his movies. 😉 And honestly, you can see that pretty clearly. 🙂 It’s more about how they operate—they’re perfectly calculated, incredibly smart, and always pack a punch with their moral, social, political, or even ideological messages. But honestly? I never actually feel the sense of fun. There's zero trace of that raw creative process—that playful ambiguity or the way a director might mess around with the setting just because they can. You know, like when Atom Egoyan plays with film architecture by slipping fake books onto a shelf in *The Adjuster*, or how Ken Loach pokes fun at Thatcherism, or Cuarón’s nod to Pink Floyd in his last film? Even Mike Leigh—and let’s face it, the guy is a cinematic depressive—actually manages some level of playfulness. Or anyone else, really. With these, there's just nothing. Either I'm missing it, or it's simply not there. Benny's VideoThe whole thing is built on such a bizarre premise that you can tell the director wasn't exactly having a blast while making it—it’s like they viewed the project more as an intellectual chore than an actual creative outlet. It feels less like art and more like some exhausting, heavy-duty mental exercise.

Aside from Michael Haneke—and I don't think Ingmar Bergman ever exactly had a blast while filming his stuff either—I wouldn't say I feel quite as "close" to Bergman as I do to Haneke. I can't really claim that with any real authority, honestly.🙂

Wait, did I wander into off-topic? 🙂

...Jason Chavez32, you're my absolute hero 😍 statistics into everything 🙏 🙏 🙏

...but it’s hardly an issue for anyone actually studying Danish 😉 🙂

(they must have been 😁 🙂 back when they were in middle school)

...honestly, I’ve 😢 studying for this massive exam, and I’ve got just as many days left as there are indie films on my watchlist—and trust me, I can't afford to waste a single one of them 😢

...but I guess I’ll 🙂 put together at least a quick summary 🙂

(maybe I'll actually get moving tomorrow... it's right there in front of me... ugh, now I'm just going to be obsessing over it all night instead of sleeping 😳 )